MIHOP theories: an overview

[Woody Box]

There is a lot of discussion going on within the MIHOP faction of the 9/11 movement. This is an absolutely necessary step for the evolution of the truth and nothing to worry about if everyone shows respect to each other.

This post is meant to clarify the standpoint of the different MIHOP positions. Dear LIHOPpers and Bush/Cheney Scenario advocates, PLEASE, don't disturb the thread by declaring crazy all MIHOPpers. If you don't like MIHOP and have nothing to contribute, PLEASE stay out of the thread.

The MIHOP theories can be subdivided in three categories:

1) The four-planers: This group thinks that the planes that hit the WTC and pentagon were the same planes as the ones that left their respective airport (according to the official story). The control of the planes was taken over by a remote-controlled system during the flight. The pilots - the original pilots or the hijackers - had no chance to influence the flight path.

Websites (not claiming to be complete): 911.review.com, oilempire.us, medienanalyse-international.de

2) The no-planers: They say that the planes hitting the WTC were just video or holographic artifacts. Instead, some high-tech military devices were used. No planes departed in Boston, Washington or Newark, and the flight pathes are complete bogus.

Websites: thewebfairy.com, 911hoax.com

3) The multi-planers: They promote a kind of plane swap. The planes started at their respective airports, but were replaced by unmanned remote controlled planes during the flight. These objects were then driven into the WTC (pentagon) while the original planes went down somewhere at a hidden place.

Websites: physics911.org, letsroll911.org, serendipity.li

This is just a summary, without any assessment. If a member of one group thinks his standpoint is not reflected properly, feel free to add corrections.

Each theory has to go through the reality test when new evidence comes to the light. This, again, is an evolutionary process. Just one of these theories can be true.

You want to know what I am? I'm a multi planer, and I'm ready to defend my position. But not here and now, because this posting is just an overview.

[bahrbearian]

1. Or Plan 4

Knew of the plan , opened all the doors, and grounded Norad.

[Woody Box]

3. But this is LIHOP

or do I get you wrong?

[bahrbearian]

6. No, knowing of a plan and letting it happen is Lihop

Enabling the plan is Mihop. I'm sure there was more help then doing nothing. The Flight schools, Visas, FBI memos....

[Woody Box]

9. Ok

I understand you. But the MIHOP theories I presented claim that the technical course of the attacks on 9/11 was completely different from the official story.

I would name your scenario "strong LIHOP" or "active LIHOP", but I don't mind if you interpret it as a kind of MIHOP.

[demodewd]

2. re:multi-planers

Multi-planers unite!! :party:

[NecessaryOnslaught]

7. Whatever the case

We can all agree(except for the osama thumpers, of course)that whatever hit the buildings didn't cause them to turn to dust and chopped up steel.

[Woody Box]

8. You're right

The big majority of MIHOPpers (including some LIHOPpers) agree that the WTC destruction was not caused by the planes.

[NMDemDist2]

4. four-planners? you mean "fore-planners" n/t

[number6]

5. MIHOP 1A.

1) The four-planers: This group thinks that the planes that hit the WTC and pentagon were the same planes as the ones that left their respective airport (according to the official story). there were hijackers on the planes, however none of them were the 19 men the
government says there were, maybe not even Arabs. They may have
had more than just box cutters, maybe guns and bombs, who knows.
Did all these hijackers know they were on a suicide mission or
just the pilots ? , were the pilots mind controlled ?

[MercutioATC]

10. "Were the pilots mind controlled"??????

You MUST be joking. Of the scenarios presented above, the only one I can't find evidence against is the remote-control scenario and I find that farfetched.

Maybe the pilots were alien robots?

:eyes:

[number6]

11. no

You MUST be joking.

you don't believe in Aliens or Robots ? ;)

[dinyc]

12. Pilots "hijacked" perhaps.

While this scenario might seem too fantastic and straight outta la-la land, it is hypothetically the simplest and neatest explanation for what happened.
I have considered it and while I'm not the type to get too carried away with the :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: , "hijacking" the pilots actually makes alot of sense.

Consider that all 4 9-11 planes had former military fliers in the cockpit, Flight 11 and Flight 175 each had 2. Consider that all of these pilots also had extensive flying experience with the large passenger planes they were piloting on 9-11. If you are the evil planner of 9-11 and you want an absolutely controlled situation with a guarantee of the planes impacting their targets, what better way to achieve your ends? No need for real hijackers, no need to get real weapons past airport security, no need for remote control technology, plane swappings or a whole lot of extra people involved. No fuss, no muss and it will be the last place anyone will look. How all 4 of these planes were taken over is something that has always bothered me and it I've seen that some of the pilots' families also are troubled by this fact.

The problem I have with any other scenarios, especially many of the MIHOPs is the plot goes to fantastic proportions, unnecessarily. No one who was in planning loop of something on the level of 9-11 would want to get carried away taking chances with elements that might not work, might be discovered, or might entail a lot of loose ends.

Just something to consider, obviously I don't know and can't know for sure. But it does have appeal, especially if one factors in the "drill" scenarios and the identities of some of the other passengers.

[demodewd]

13. You mean?

You mean the pilots lose control by being taken over from the outside? I worked with that scenario for awhile but changed directions with the pod information coming to light. Also I believe it difficult to guide a plane with the specs needed to crash it at an exact (i.e.the corner of the South Tower)location. Correct me if I'm wrong. But by bringing the planes down and lifting off replacements the technology is there to pull the tragedy off with guaranteed exactness. Once the original flights are grounded it's all planned to the max with the elimination of human error.

[MercutioATC]

14. I do see your point, but mind control would be too risky, IMHO.

Even if it were possible, the possibility of it not working would have jeopardized the entire mission. No commercial pilot would fly into a building willingly.

[Abe Linkman]

15. Neither would ANY of the Arab men named as 9-11 hijackers

"No commercial pilot would fly into a building willingly."

Coke snorting, alcohol drinking, pork chop eating, topless bar habitues...please. I've heard some fantastical conspiracy theories; but trying to say those guys were part of a dastardly conspiracy against the U.S. is plain nuts.

Patsies, maybe. Willing conspirators? No way, no how. Knowing that a
self-claimed CIVILIAN (?) ATC employee believes in such a fantasy is not reassuring, I gotta tell you! Glad I'm not scheduled to be flying anywhere near where you say you work.

[MercutioATC]

16. Another personal attack, Abe?

Can't you get your point across without childish insults? What do my beliefs about 9/11 have to do with controlling airplanes?

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear what field YOUR expertise is in.

[dinyc]

17. I agree

No commercial pilot would fly into a building willingly.

And of course the whole idea of whether it is possible or not is very sketchy. Personally, tho, I have seen people do some rather stupid things under the influence of simple hypnosis. Stupid in a manner in that they do things they would never do under normal conditions or because they were given suggestions and reacted to stimulus different than they would under normal conditions. Any of the supposed scenarios contain an element of risk, including the accepted version. I guess it's a matter of weighing the percentages.

[demodewd]

18. %s

The best percentage is that you lock into the computer flight program and bring a plane load of gassed passengers and crew down and send up a substitute plane that is programed like a guided missile.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. There is no room in the radar evidence for that hypothesis

The planes didn't land. Others didn't take off.

That is a dealbreaker for this theory, demodewd. The evidence is there. Your scenario did not happen.

[demodewd]

21. re: deal breaker

It most certainly did happen because the evidence is there. The pod exists..I know you refute it but...you are just flat out wrong. There IS a missile pod on #175 and it does shoot an incendiary type of missile just prior to the plane's entry. That is the deal breaker. But you either have bad eyes or are in denial.As one has said..you see what you believe. It appears on every... I repeat...every...photograph that exposes the undercarraige of the plane just prior to entry. There has been no photo to refute this.Case closed. The planes were replaced.It's very easy to see..really..but you don't see it because it blows your theory(not fact) sky high. Your Caveman scenario is pure mass media/government propaganda. They got you where they want you.

[Abe Linkman]

22. Promoting the Caveman scenario requires creative explanations.

Like:

* "Just because Osama is a cave dweller doesn't mean he isn't powerful enough, smart enough, and rich enough to pull off 9-11".

* "Just because a B757 wasn't found where it is alleged to have crashed, doesn't mean it didn't crash there."

* "If one jet engine was found, it MUST be from a 757, and the other one must have melted or been destroyed by ___ inside the Pentagon."

* "The Pod in the photos that has been proven to NOT be a shadow, can't be a Pod, because it's a shadow."


Wild and crazy Conspiracy Theories require media/government assistance to sell the Big Lie.

[dinyc]

25. REALITY

Has anyone with any military background confirmed this alleged missile pod?

I think it's very telling that if you do a search for "missile pod" half of the results, at least, are for toys, computer games or some kind of Dungeons and Drangonesque club of geeks. This whole theory I think really plays well with people who watch a lot of TV and see a lot of movies.

You have no evidence that what you are seeing in those photos is a missile launched. NONE. Your interpretation of photographic anomalies does not constitute EVIDENCE. PODGUY PHIL JAYHAN's opinion is not evidence either.

And that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you buys the "Caveman scenario" or whatever you guys are calling it this week.

Your constant harping on this theme makes me wonder what your deal is.

[k-robjoe]

29. this is

not in any way evidence. ( I agree with you that there´s a lot of harping on this, not really adding anything. )
But here is a link, it was posted by "Ezlivin" on another thread, and it gives a theory to this that makes more sense, you will find it interesting (if nothing else) : http://www.jackblood.com/index/id31.html

[demodewd]

31. Sorry to "harp" but..

Have you gone into the main page of www.letsroll.org ? And noticed the orange flare emitted from the pod towards the building immediately preceding the plane's entry? I just read K-rob's web entry...here's a snippet of it.. http://www.jackblood.com/index/id31.html

"I work as a F.A.A. licenced airframe and powerplant mechanic with a major U.S. commercial air carrier.

The photos in LetsRoll911.org show a "Pod" on the bottom of that Boeing 767's fuselage.

The location of that "Pod" corresponds exactly with the bottom fuselage panel covering "Zone 194RL" (to use Boeing's own designation terminology). It is WITHIN the space covered by zone 194RL's panel that the AIRCRAFT RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM (ECS) bay is located.

Any other A&P mechanics working for US commerical air carriers using Boeing 767 equipment can verify what I've shared with you. One quick reference from the Boeing 767-200/300 Maintenance Manuals would be Boeing's "Fault Isolation/Maintenance Manual", ATA Chapter reference 21-51-00, page 104, figure 102.

By removing the AIRCONDITIONING PACK from within the ECS bay covered by zone 194RL's panel, sealing any open air ducts with blanking plates and by manufacturing a replacement zone 194RL panel with the necessary aerodynamic bulge, one could install a missile launching pylon and missile with the confines of this ECS bay.

The selection of a missile launcher might be of this type: "...a missile launcher that could demonstrate the launch of an AMRAAM missile from THE INTERNAL BAY of the 'YF-22' prototype...et al", quoting from: http://www.edocorp.com/marine/missile.html

Another selection of a missile might be of this type: "...the low smoke, high impulse rocket motor reduces the chances of an enemy sighting either the launch or the oncoming missile...", quoting from: http://www.raytheon.com/products/amraam/ "

Please feel free to forward this e-mail of mine to you to any and all individuals/organizations working to expose the truth about the 911 'terrorist' attacks on US citizens and our US Nation

[demodewd]

32. sorry again...my bad

it's www.letsroll911.org

[dinyc]

39. Why yes. Yes I have.

LetsRoll911.org looks to me to be complete grade A bullsh*t.
They are still using stuff over there, like that video that supposedly shows WTC 6 exploding, when it was long ago shown to be FAKE!

On the first part of Jack Blood' site they are talking about the "MK series" bomb. Correct me if I'm wrong but a BOMB is different from a MISSILE. It is dropped not launched. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Mark%2084%20bomb explains that the MK84 is a 2,000 lb freefall type of ordnance. I'm not sure how this is supposed to launch into the WTC prior to impact, they never explain. They just start talking about "fuzes". Call me crazy but I think this is an important distinction. The other issue is if you have this 1 ton bomb housed in something on one side of the plane, isn't that alot of weight that isn't on the other side of the plane? Is that why it flew crooked into the building?


The guy you quoted drops alot of terminology like he knows what he is talking about. And he seems to get around.
Here he is on a chemtrails board http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=7770.topic.

Oh well, let me share with all of you some technical information with relates to the Boeing 767 you see being deliberately plunged into one of the Twin Towers. FYI, the hasn't been so much as A PEEP from the 10-12 million or so souls who live in New York City since LetsRoll911 logged on with their expose!

"The Big Apple" - I suppose you have to have the INTELLIGENCE OF A WORM to live there, to get a City job there, to obtain an elected Gov't position there!

- TOCarm


TOCarm
Registered User
(5/4/04 8:35 pm)
Reply Re: Boeing 767s - the 'Pod' - 'Missiles' - etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A scientist I'm not. That's why I try to educate myself on all the various 'scientific' stuff that crops up here on Cliff's website. But I do know a lot of the "general" type of scientific stuff in physics, biology, chemistry, etc.

Now I work as a F.A.A. licensed airframe & powerplant mechanic with a major U.S. commercial air carrier. We got Boeing 737's, Boeing 757's, Boeing 767's & Boeing 777's.

The photos/film footage you see of that Boeing 767 being deliberately plunged into the WTC Tower shows a "Pod" on the bottom of its fuselage.

The location of that "Pod" corresponds EXACTLY with the bottom fuselage panel covering 'Zone 194RL' (to use Boeing's own designation terminology). It is WITHIN the space covered by zone 194RL's panel that the AIRCRAFT RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM (ECS) bay is located. Any other A&P mechanic(s) working for any US commercial air carrier(s) using Boeing 767 equipment can verify what I've shared with you. One quick reference from the Boeing Maintenance Manuals would be Boeing's "Fault Isolation/Maintenance Manual", Airline Transport Association (ATA) Chapter reference 21-51-00, page 104, figure 102....
<snip>
What more can I say...between CHEMTRAILS and FAKE, STAGED 'TERRORIST' ATTACKS, between UNCONSTITUTIONAL BANKING SYSTEMS and ILLEGAL & FRAUDULANT FEDERAL INCOME TAX, between ZIONISTS and MASONS running our Nation - if there be any "Real Discovery" on the part of the greater percentage of peoples currently living on our planet earth, it is this:

We are FILLED TO THE BRIM & OVERFLOWING with SOUL-LESS, CONSCIENCE-LESS, EVIL PERPETRATORS at every level, at every strata, in every nation/state/continent
of human society and human civilization. Period.

Sure you wanna use this guy as a source?

[demodewd]

44. re: BS

I'm not going to vouch for everything eveyone says. No doubt there is some element of BS. But a number of the participants on the site make coherent convincing arguments. I don't vouch for the veracity of every reference I post on DU. But I do believe that there is a flame coming out of the bulge area of that plane just before it hits the wall as shown by the video clip on the home page of letsroll911.org .

[k-robjoe]

46. Quick reply

Yes, about the WTC 6 explosion, I tried sending a mail, saying that he ("Geronimo Jones") should leave that out, and why. Don´t know if he got it. (Sent it to "Masterkey").

> MK84 is a 2,000 lb freefall type of ordnance.

But this needn´t be that one, or any standard bomb.

> if you have this 1 ton bomb housed in something on one side of the plane...

Don´t know if it´s housed in something. From right underneath it looks as if it´s not. (If that is what it is) Don´t know if it would be heavy enough to cause a problem. When they sent off this speed record thing ( X1 (?)), it was connected underneath the wing, next second it was not, seemed to work allright.

> They just start talking about "fuzes".

I need to check this out, but if what they are talking about here is not just BS, then I don´t really follow your problem with "how this is supposed to launch into the WTC prior to impact". It is not launched prior to impact. The flash that we see, would be this "fuze", and the bomb would just punch through still attatched to the plane, the fuze flash being there to "tell" the bomb that it´s hitting the wall (like it would hit a roof if dropped), and to explode in 1/10th second.

[dinyc]

47. Quicker reply

But this needn´t be that one, or any standard bomb..
It needn't be anything at all when you get right down to it. That is my point.

I need to check this out, but if what they are talking about here is not just BS, then I don´t really follow your problem with "how this is supposed to launch into the WTC prior to impact". It is not launched prior to impact. The flash that we see, would be this "fuze", and the bomb would just punch through still attatched to the plane, the fuze flash being there to "tell" the bomb that it´s hitting the wall (like it would hit a roof if dropped), and to explode in 1/10th second.

I asked for some kind of military-type reference to the launched missile argument people are trying to back up. This is a completely different scenario and doesn't have anything to do with all of these people who say they see a missile launched prior to the plane hitting the building. As far as I'm concerned it's even dumber.
With all of the military hardware available why hang a bomb on the outside of a plane you know about a billion people are going to looking at over and over??

There are alot ways to accomplish what everyone says the BOMB and the MISSILE were supposed to do, with everything contained INSIDE THE PLANE. But no, the evil geniuses behind 9-11 installed a bomb that cameras over a mile away can see being armed before the bigger bomb (airplane) crashes into the buildng. Too bad for them that they can pull of all of this other stuff like faking the phone calls, disposing of the victims that didn't really die at the impact sites, getting various local agencies to lie about DNA and body parts, getting rid of the original planes...but they just couldn't come up with a way to cause that big explosion without showing their slip. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[k-robjoe]

49. The only way it can make sense

is if the conspirators are so powerful that they needn´t worry AT ALL about getting caught, and they do some things that seem totally meaningless, I don´t know for what purpose, to show off, ( to other "untouchables"? ), just how untouchable they are?

There`s some similar weird things with the Pentagon attack.

( And with every scenario that I can think of, I run into things that just don´t make sense. ) ( Some of them, you can have a feeling that you can´t rule out that there is sense to it, only I can´t see it. )

[MercutioATC]

50. Exactly! A plane full of fuel would make enough of a "bang" by itself.

Why put a missile on it?

The scenario is even more implausible if the "replacement plane" argument is used (which it must be, because if the "real" plane had a "bulge" on it, it would have been detected by dozens of people before takeoff). Why, using an empty plane that you could fill with explosives if you wished, would anybody mount an exterior missile pod? There were doubts that a commercial airliner travelling in excess of 400 knots would make it through the outer wall of the building?

[demodewd]

52. denial

The scenario isn't implausible because there IS a bulge(pod) on that plane. You continue to deny this when it is absolutely a physical reality. See www.letsroll911.org Notice the orange flair extending from the pod to the building immediately before the plane enters the building? There is an orange flair there,right? Or don't you see that either? Also the level of skill to radically bank that plane is prohibitive when one is talking about the level of skill(or lack of it) that these "alleged" hijackers possessed.You start from the unproven premise that Arab hijackers flew the planes and you adamantly don't deviate. You refuse to budge. This blinds you....literally.

[Abe Linkman]

53. There's no denying the pod. Prof. photo analysis also proves it.

People who support the conspiracy theory which has a very sick man who lives in caveS and supposedly has the resources & connections to pull off 9-11 will believe or DISbelieve, say or refuse to say, just about anything.

If you just start with the very obvious fact that the evidence at the Pentagon disproves the notion of a 757 crashing there...nevermind the thousand other impossible "coincidences" of that particular location,
you are forced by common sense and intellectual honesty to question every other aspect of the events of 9-11.

[dinyc]

54. Prof. photo analysis

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Who?
Your friend at the Fotohut?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No wait...even better. Someone who refers to themselves as THE WEB FAIRY...

Demo you should make Podguy Phil Jayhan give you $$ on dropping his web address everywhere. I figure if he gives you a quarter everytime you do it, you'll be able to retire by the end of the summer.

[demodewd]

56. pod pod pod

The pod's there. If you don't see...too bad. I can't lead the blind.

[MercutioATC]

20. Actually, if I was forced to subscribe to a CT, "remote control" looks the

best. I don't believe it, but there's no evidence refuting a scenario where a hidden remote control device was used to fly the planes.

Every other scenario has BIG holes.

[BeFree]

23. Multi-planes

Well, we know several planes were "Lost from radar - NO contact, nada, zilch, then, they reappeared"....NORAD Testimony to 9/11 Commission.

All four planes were guided by ex-military. So if any one of those pilots were to get a message from a General while in the air, he ain't gonna say "NO" is he?

The General's message may have been something like: "There is an emergency, land your plane at (military base coordinates)".

At such and such base, a remote controlled plane is readied for takeoff. The commercial jet lands, is lost from radar, and the remote launches, thereby "reappearing" on radar.

All ground support people on said bases are told this is a top secret mission so "You never saw it" is the MO.

BTW: A Top ranked General was in the air, "on the way to Europe" on 9/11. Surely he was in an airplane that had ALL the top secret communications gear.

[MercutioATC]

26. Even if your scenario WAS plausible, WHY?

Why not just use the original planes? Why land them and be forced to dispose of them, the passengers and the crews? It just doesn't make any sense.

I also take issue with the idea that there were no primary radar returns. I believe they were there. "Radar contact lost" doesn't mean that the primary tragets were lost, too.

[Abe Linkman]

27. Re: your observation

How would you envision carrying out the conspiracy "using the original planes"? In your mind, how would that work?

Thanks in advance for your THOUGHTFUL response.

[MercutioATC]

28. As I explained before, I don't believe it happened this way, but

I don't have any facts that directly contradict it.

Remote-control devices could have been hidden in the aircraft and used to take over the control functions of the plane in-flight.

Of course, that still doesn't explain the sounds of a struggle heard over the frequency when UAL93 was hijacked...

[seatnineb]

30. Primary Radar Returns

Mercutio.....
You say that as an ATC you DO NOT turn off your primary radar when you monitor flights above 18000ft.
Is this rule universal.If so could you quote the regulation that says so.
Or is it exclusive to Cleveland where you work......OR applied by some en-route centers and not by others........

Because in the case of FLIGHT 77 it would seem both Indianapolis and Washington were both using SECONDARY RADAR ONLY.

"As the airliner(Flt 77) sped east, controllers handling other SECTORS OF HIGH ALTITUDE AIRSPACE in the Indianapolis center and the Washington center, at Leesburg, DID NOT NOTICE IT, sources said. As usual, THEY WERE NOT MONITORING PRIMARY RADAR EITHER, . The two centers cover large areas of the Ohio Valley and Mid-Atlantic areas."

"The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 DISAPPEARED FROM RADAR CONTROLLER'S SCREENS FOR AT LEAST 30 MINUTES -- "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2



As for the Nashua Center that scrutinized Flight 11........

"Also, as soon as it became known that airliners were DISAPPEARING FROM RADAR SCREENS, controllers in the New York and Boston "en route" sectors TURNED ON their primary radar. That left the Northeast blanketed with both types of radar. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2
The above would imply that those primary radars were initially switched OFF.

Mercutio.....
What Say You.....

[MercutioATC]

33. At Cleveland Center, it's a facility-wide SOP.

I truthfully don't know whether other facilities have different regulations, but I'll attempt to find out.

(on edit: "SOP"s aren't optional, they're regulations. I didn't want to give the impression that it was "just the way we do it". It's a written rule.)

[BeFree]

35. Lost from radar

No matter what you say, atc, some planes were totally out of contact for some time. The ATC'ers didn't have a clue what, where and when. Your obstination in not being able to come to terms with that fact is, at best, a pile of you know what. At it's worst, a clue that you are here solely as a disinformation specialist. (although I doubt the last one because you do it so poorly)

You asked: why go through all that bother of switching planes?
Well, why not? If something had gone wrong, say an ATC'er sounding the proper alarm and the whole deal was scooped, the passengers would still be alive, the planes intact. No harm, no foul, nothing happened. Once the deed was done, and it appeared just the way they claim, it's simple to herd all the passengers and delete them.

You said you believe it could have been remote controls planted in the planes. You have some facts to back that up, or is that just wild speculation?

[MercutioATC]

36. Actually, none of that has anything to do with my assertions.

Since I wasn't sitting at the sectors with the controllers at all of the different facilities, I can't tell you if they were filtering out primary returns or not. What I can tell you is that, regardless of what they had displayed at the time, the data still would have been recorded and seen in an investigation of the radar tapes.

The only things I said about remote control of the planes were 1) I don't believe it happened that way, but 2) I had no facts that would specifically rule it out. That's hardly "wild speculation".

[k-robjoe]

37. So if they were swapped

the "swappers" would need to control the investigation of the radar tapes? (Or to tamper with them at anearly stage?)

[MercutioATC]

38. I'm saying IF the primaries were deselected...

...keep in mind, the controllers could turn them back on with the push of a button.

And it would still entail keeping the scores of people who reviewed the tapes (and the controllers) quiet.

[seatnineb]

40. Radar Mosaic System

Mercutio....
You informed us on Sun Jun-13-04 12:02 PM
That.....

"ARTCCs (Centers) use a radar mosaic system. The data from MULTIPLE RADAR SITES is processed by a computer which generates a display. There is no "sweep".

Am I correct in assuming that the Indianapolis center also used/uses this same "Mosaic System"?.

Because on 9/11 at the Indianapolis center this happened......

"When they reconstructed Flight 77's path, investigators determined that it was PICKED UP BY SOME DISTANT RADARS, BUT NONE THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO THE INDIANAPOLIS CONTROLLER, FAA officials said. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

Mercutio
What Say You.

[MercutioATC]

42. Some radar history:

Yes, Indy uses the same system.

A few years before 9/11, the FAA decided that primary radar was too expensive to maintain and began decommissioning sites. NATCA (our union) objected, pointing out that a lack of primary radar reduced safety. The FAA stopped decomissioning sites, but did not restore the sites already mothballed. There are gaps in primary radar coverage...possibly even in Indy Center. Cleveland Center and Centers east of us weren't effected, to the best of my knowledge.

The fact that "some distant radars" still recieved the primary returns illustrates how difficult it would be to hide the data. Cleveland Center's radar sites also cover part of Indy Center's airspace, as do Chicago Center's, Memphis Center's, etc. We're talking about multiple facilities' data tapes that would have to be tampered with before anybody saw them.

Is it possible, well sure. I suppose anything's possible. It would be extremely difficult, however, and the risk of detection would be extremely high.

[BeFree]

60. One more time, atc

A NORAD commander, in a presentation to the 9/11 Commission, stated that after looking over all the tapes, NORAD found several Planes that ALL contact was lost for minutes. ALL contact was lost. Enough of your bs about radar bleh, blah, blah.

For several minutes, ALL contact was LOST from several of the four planes that day. The planes must have landed. There is no other reason for ALL contact to be lost. Of course, they all reappeared again. Well, something reappeared, but since all that reappeared was merely a blip - a blip with no transponder message - we don't really know much about the planes the primary radar once again began picking up.

[MercutioATC]

61. Why must the planes have landed?

You're making assumptions without supporting data.

Either the system worked and primary targets were always present on the tapes or it didn't and they weren't. There's nothing here to suggest that the planes landed.

[BeFree]

62. It did, they weren't

The system worked just fine. Not only the primary targets were lost but secondary, tertiary and quadrupleary targets were lost. The only way that can happen is for the targets to go low. Real low. Landed low. For minutes. Lost. Then reappeared.

[MercutioATC]

63. But, if they "disappeared" at altitude (when the transponders were

turned off), why weren't primary targets recorded on the way down?

Where did you get the information that the planes only "disappeared" when they were "real low"?

[BeFree]

64. Planes disappear from radar all the time, right?

[MercutioATC]

65. In some places, at low altitude (where terrain interferes), yes. NOT

at altitude, however.

[BeFree]

66. Exactly, NOT at altitude.

That suggests, to answer your question, that the planes landed.

It happens all the time. In fact, every plane - once in the air, eventually disappears from radar.
Geez, you'd think you'd of known that without all this back and forth.

To sum up: NORAD says that the planes disappeared totally from radar. No blip, no transponder, nothing - zilch, nada. That means they went below X number of feet. That suggests they landed. That suggestion suits the theory of multi-planes.

[MercutioATC]

67. No, the transponders were turned off at altitude, not near the ground.

If you disagree, I'd invite you to cite one link where the assertion is made that the planes "disappeared" at low altitude.

[BeFree]

68. No link needed

Planes always disappear at low altitude. But you knew that didn't you?
Because, as we both know, plane's radar blips don't disappear at high altitude. Any object above a certain level shows up as a radar blip, right?

If you disagree, I'd invite you to cite one link where the assertion is made that the planes "disappeared" at low altitude.

[MercutioATC]

69. Not always, but yes, frequently.

It depends on the plane's location in relation to the radar site the terrain between them.

[k-robjoe]

41. to keep them quiet

To keep the controllers quiet : How many are we talking about?
( I´ve heard something like : the controller who watched fl 11 and 175 was the same guy who watched that egyptian plane that went down mysteriously in 99 (?), is this just rubbish? )

The scores of people who reviewed the tapes : How many are we talking about? ( And is there any chance that the tapes were tampered with, before they got to see them?)

[MercutioATC]

43. See Post #42 above...

I'd estimate that a dozen controllers and 5 or 6 supervisory staff at Cleveland Center watched UAL93. Quality Assurance and other management personnel then has access to the data tapes. Figure at least double that number at New York and Boston Centers.

I have no idea if the same controller witnessed the three crashes.

As I've mentioned, I know Stacey Taylor well and I've never seen any evidenced that she's being "kept quiet".

[k-robjoe]

45. Flight 93

Actually flight 93 is a plane that I don´t see any reason why we should believe it was swapped.

So Stacey Taylor is probably not being "kept quiet", and has not been conned about flight 93.
Off course, we´ve been conned about the last three minutes, but that is something else. But it shows us that there are people who can pull such a trick.

[MercutioATC]

48. I'll admit, I'd like to see an explanation of the last 3 minutes, too.

[Abe Linkman]

51. You're assuming there IS one - that's plausible. There isn't.

If there was, you would be among the first to be trumpeting the news and using it in your special way to preserve, protect, and defend the "Cavepeople did it" fairy tale.

[MercutioATC]

59. You never quit, do you? Want to answer the questions I've asked ?

...or would you rather stick to hit and run sound (text) bites?

Look, if anybody's establishing themselves as "lightweights", it's those that refuse to answer direct questions and insist on taking nonsensical jabs.

I'm really disappointed that I can't get an intelligent response from some people here. I had hoped for better...

[Woody Box]

57. Every MIHOPper should ask himself regarding Flight 93:

What was the purpose of this flight?

Two planes hit the WTC towers, one plane hit the pentagon. The "shock and awe" effect for the American people was there already and was hardly increased by UA 93's crash. Why to set up a fourth plane?

This question is, I think, not addressed by Four-planers and No-planers. Snake Plissken and AK Dewdney found an answer as they interpret the flight as the final one where all passengers were collected.

I don't know if they're right, but at least they address the question.

[demodewd]

58. 93 and then some

Perhaps the fourth plane was "hijacked" so that the American public would identify with the alleged heroics that went on to wrestle the controls away from the hijackers.All the alleged phone calls makes the overall story just that much more credible to the masses. I am prone to think that the passengers and crews were all lethally gassed and the computer flight programs taken over from the outside. Disposing of all the four plane's passengers via 93 seems too risky. By bringing the planes down and destroying them and burying the passengers in mass grave sites at a secret location is more secure in its operation. Far less people involved. Thus when the body parts and DNA in PA are collected and identified..they do match the passenger list of 93. Perhaps the other three planes were ferried over the Atlantic and crashed under night cover.

[medienanalyse]

55. SMACK - Mercutio

I knew somehow we are on the same side, and now you prove it.

You admit there are RADAR tapes.
That is what I say - it is evidence never made public except the one scrtched tape (allegedly) in the commission where we learned about another C-130.

And then you argue against the "lost radar-blip" nonsense. I like it how the mainstream destruchts its own fairy tales.

smack again.

[medienanalyse]

34. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.

Those who are asked are not those who give answers.

To understand whatever allged ATCs are going to answer you might better understand what RADAR means -"primary"- "secondary" why not "third" or "ship-Radar" or whatever? The beam hits and the result is shown on the screen. The rest is digitalzed surplus. But there is NO DISAPPEARANCE of RADAR-results.

[dinyc]

24. How are you

qualified to boldly state what the "best percentage" is?

Seriously.