What happened to the passengers?

[stickdog]

They were emergency landed at a military base (or several military bases) and told that they had to get on another plane where their calls to relatives would be used to misdirect other terrorists about the success of the terrorists' operation that day in a giant sting that would be used to flush out and capture the rest of terrorist conspirators.

After the passengers made the required calls to their relatives, the planes they were loaded on were used as targets in the war games scheduled for that day, probably with their mil/intel handlers & pilots still aboard and not even cognizant of the entire plot.

[jschurchin]

1. I don't know about that............

theory stickdog. Seems like kind of a stretch. I mean anything is possible but...........

[stickdog]

3. If the operation was 100% MIHOP (and I'm not saying for sure it was)

why take chances?

[MrSammo1]

2. There's really no reason to involve

real people.

All that's needed is a few shills salted in for effect.

Two of those shills can be seen in the National Geographic 911 special on the subject.

Computers are wonderful inventions!

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Words cannot express...

... how much I disagree with that.

(1) If the planes with the passengers landed, where did the four planes that crashed come from?
(2) Are you saying that the radar returns are false?
(3) So your saying that the ATC transcripts are false?
(4) The DNA of many passengers was identified, as were their belongings at the crash sites. How did this happen?

[stickdog]

6. Good questions.

1) Did four planes crash? Because I only saw one for sure.

2) What radar returns? Have you seen them?

3) No. Other than the hijackers mistakenly saying stuff on mike that they supposedly meant to announce to the passengers, that is. That crap was undoubtedly broadcast by someone, but not the planes in question.

4) Flight 93 was probably "helped" down in PA. What other passenger DNA or belongings were found? Any reports of this to share?

I'm just flying this up the poll for discussion. I'm not convinced what happened except that we are obviously being lied to on many levels. Please provide any documentation you can of passenger DNA and effects being found anywhere but in PA.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Planes

(1) I saw two crashes and I'm happy with the accounts of debris at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. You still need to say where the plane that hit the south tower came from.

(2) The controllers would see the radar returns. If you say they're lying or fooled, then you're increasing the complexity of the conspiracy and bringing more people in. They were also talking to the planes and the transcripts are public.

(3) The ATC were watching the planes on their screens and talking to them before they were hijacked. Some of the transcripts have been released, for example:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/nyt101601c.html
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/nyt101601b.html
What is real here and what is not?

(4) Some passengers on 77 and 93 were identified by body parts, most by DNA. Are you saying this was faked? Personal items were found for some passengers, for example:
Here's a link to a story about a personal item (a ring) recovered from the Pentagon:
http://gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=73724
Her ID card and passport were also found and her husband was asked if he wanted to view the remains (he declined). Links to these stories are banned, but google "Suzanne Calley Ingledue" and you should find them.

So you're saying there was somebody on the plane, he took her stuff, plus the other stuff from the plane (including a luggage tag from the cargo hold!), bailed out and the plane was shot down over the ocean after it's radar return was supressed?

[Andre II]

18. Crash sites

As you're "happy" with the crash site in Shanksville please give me only one witness from the day of 911 itself that who wasn't surprised that a plane was supposed to have crashed there (I've asked this LARED since a month and he still fails ...)

What "body parts" for UA 93?
Please tell me how big was the biggest body part found at the crash site?
Why was there not a drop of blood?
Why did it take the coroner one hour to find the first trace of human remains?
At what angle did the plane crash btw?

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Surprise

The first time I saw a real live snake, many years ago, I was surprised - I thought they were supposed to be slimy. However, I am reasonably sure that it was actually a snake. The eyewitnesses at Shanksville very probably had little experience of plane crashes, so they were surprised when they actually saw one. No big deal.

Body parts:
"six hundred pounds of remains were recovered" ATH, p. 363. This is based on an interview with Miller.
The biggest body part was not very big - a bundle of tendons, the mask of a face.
The blood soaked into the earth.
You'd have to ask him.
45 degrees or so.

[Andre II]

38. Surpising

There is not a SINGLE eyewitness at the crash site that wasn't surprised by the ABSENCE of debris (including the coroner). Sorry, I believe your snake example doesn't help me out here.

600 pounds were found. Yes, but not on 911 itself.
The coroner didn't find ANY HUMAN REMAINS for one hour. Why? Because there weren't any.
Where did you find that a "mask of a face" was found?
What I've found:
“Nearly all the passengers were reduced to charcoal on impact and the largest piece of human tissue found was a section of spine eight inches long.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12192317&method=full&siteid=50143

"The blood soaked into the earth".
Sorry, Kevin, are you serious?
Do you think this brilliant remark can explain why even the coroner called it "the most eerie thing"
Please explain me how you can find human remains but there is not a single drop of blood?

45 degrees.
Interesting.
Please check out the aerial views on the crash site and explain how a plane can manage this crater when crashing at 45 dregrees?

Show me any crash that only slightly resembles this one.
Then explain me why you're "happy" with the crash site. What makes you think that a plane actually crashed there?

[petgoat]

10. DNA samples could have easily been taken from live

passengers or dead ones. Hair, saliva, or tissue.

[Kevin Fenton]

22. Remote control

is not something I can agree with, but at least it makes sense from an operational viewpoint. However, what is the point of swapping the planes? if they can be remote controlled, then why not just run them into the buildings and have done with it.

Shooting United 93 down and keeping it quiet involves a conspiracy of a few people.
Blowing up the WTC as well involves a conspiracy of a few dozen people.
Swapping the planes involves a conspiracy of a few hundred people.

How likely is it?

[rman]

32. Not just any plane can be remote controlled

At the very least the planes would have to be fitted with RC for the auto pilot. And some remote sensing capability or homing device sure would come in handy.

Why would swapping planes involve 100's of people?
Surely the Joined Chiefs of Staff didn't think swapping planes would be a problem wrt Operation Northwoods.

[Kevin Fenton]

34. If the planes are remote controlled...

... (which I don't think they are) then what is the point of having two sets of remote controlled planes? Or are you saying that the first set of planes was not remote controlled, but the second set was? But who would be flying the first set and what would the point of that be? Why not just have the first set remote controlled?

As for the number of people involved, you've got to develop the technology, fit it, hack into ATC software, kill the people, bury them, dispose of the planes, fly the replacement planes, plant the explosives, run the patsies, issue the flase transcripts, plant evidence, control the media, etc., etc.

Shooting down United 93 and keeping it quiet is a relatively simple matter in comparison.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff thought one plane could be swapped over the water in the 1960s - they may well have thought it was a problem, but was doable. That doesn't mean four could be swapped in 2001. Do you really think that's what happened?

[rman]

37. It starts with a 'real' passenger plane ,

that is swapped for a RC plane. The point being to make it more plausible that the 'victim plane' is a real passenger plane. Though it's possible that in some or in all cases on 9-11 RC planes were used. In which case there'd be no swapping.
The technology was there in the 1960's - see op Northwoods. The people developing it don't need to know how it will be used. RC planes are used in crash tests.
How many people does it take to kill a couple of passengers?
It takes only on pilot per plane to fly them. Could be under the cover of the war games on 9-11. The pilots don't need to know all the details of the over all plot.
We've been over the demo charges already; takes only a couple of dozen. Patsies are run, false transcripts can be planted by some in the upper levels. The media already are controlled (see media ownership), and much of the control is just political correctness and self-interest - no need to know more then what story to run, and they just run the stories that come in over the wire. Many of the stories come from PR agencies, and anyone can set up a PR agency (ie CIA front). Infiltration of the media by the CIA is pretty well documented. It also helps that today's MSM are not in the habit of asking critical questions.

As i said swapping might not have taken place in some or perhaps in all cases on 9-11. In my theory only 3 planes are involved (no plane at the Pentagon). I don't see how swapping 3 planes would be much more of a problem then swapping one plane.
Going on the assumption that it was an inside job, RC planes are the simplest solution. Crew and passengers are wild cards that increase the risk of failure.

Lastly, any questions regarding 9-11 CT doesn't make the OCT any more plausible. I don't think i'm supposed to prove what did actually happen that day. To do that a proper investigation is needed.

[Andre II]

39. Absolutely

Having a RC plane from the start makes no sense cause all passengers would be in the know.
Go for Operation Northwood.
As I've stated already this also explains
the switching off of the transponder
no emergency code of any pilot
the strange flight paths.

And why do you need 100 people in the know?

[stickdog]

33. Well, they could have just gassed the planes (or incapacitated

the pilots and/or manual control overrides in some other manner) and used the Flight Control Computers' (fancy autopilot that comes on all 757s and 767s) waypoints to crash the planes unattended.

However, Flight 77's ridiculous reported approach would seem to be a potential problem, as would the all the reported phone victims' calls (most from Flight 93). If we make Flight 93 a separate case that got off the ground too late and had to be shot down, then that basically takes care of that objection.

I was just saying what I would assume happened to the passengers, IF the flights in question didn't hit the targets they supposedly did -- all conjectures that I feel are currently possible but questionable.

[Kevin Fenton]

35. I just can't see it

As far as concerns American 77, this is quite interesting:
"9:29 a.m.: Autopilot on Flight 77 Disengaged"
"Flight 77’s autopilot is disengaged. The plane is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon. <9/11 Commission, 8/24/2004> Information from the plane’s recovered flight data recorder (see September 13-14, 2001) later will indicate the pilot had entered autopilot instructions for a course to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (which is nearby the Pentagon). <9/11 Commission, 2/27/2004>"

I wonder who flew it.

[Andre II]

17. Words cannot express how much

I agree in general withs stickdog.

(1) The CIA for example has their own planes, haven't they?
(2)If you add that a plane swap took place then you don't need false radar and false ATC transcripts.
It would btw also explain why the transponder were switched off, why no emergency signal was sent by the pilots and why the planes had such strange flight paths. Have a look how they swap a plane in Operation Northwood.
(4) As the organizers have killed the passengers it doesn't look as an huge obstacle to get part of human remains to Shanksville that would be found a couple of days after 911.

[Kevin Fenton]

23. I think you need to come off the fence and...

... say what you actually think happened in Shanksville. Did a plane hit the ground there or not?

[Andre II]

40. No

No plane.
Why do you think a plane crashed there?

[Kevin Fenton]

41. How do you explain...

The radar returns?
The debris?
The human remains?
The hole?
The eyewitness statements? Are you saying they didn't see a plane? If they did, where did it go?
The damage to the surrounding area - severed trees, etc.?

[Andre II]

42. Come on, Kevin

you did read a bit on the crash site, didn't you?
And btw: You were the one who claimed that you're "happy" with the crash site but instead of expressing the reasons why you consider it a certainty that a plane crashed there you avoid answering and instead answer me to prove that there was no plane ....


Btw:
I didn't say there was no plane in Shanksville. I said no plane crashed in Shanksville. That's different.
Therefore the radar turns don't change anything. Btw care to explain Woody Box's finding why there are apparently two different planes around 9:50 considered to have been UA 93?

The debris? Sorry, what debris?
Are you talking about the bits and pieces big as a telephone book. (Nothing bigger than this was found on 911).
Well, let's say it doesn't really prove to me that a plane crashed there.

The human remains?
Now, you're certainly starting to joke.
May I ask you how you explain the incredible absence of human remains? I'm talking what was found on 911 not what was found several days later.

The hole?
Joking again. Why do you consider the hole a proof that a plane crashed there??

The eyewitnesses:
How many people saw a plane northwest of the crash site? Many.
What did they see? A plane vanishing behind a treeline.
Well, Kevin, how many people actually saw the plane crashing?

Where did it go?
Many possibilities. eg Indian Lake Airport.

The damage to the surrounding area, trees.
Well, Kevin, there are only a few trees burnt. And look at the meadow around the crater. Dry grass. But hey, Pentalawn in Shanksville...


So, I've answered. Now, for a change, it's your turn:
What assures you that a plane actually crashed there?

[Kevin Fenton]

44. You're bending the arguments

First of all let's clear up the radar returns:
It's hilly there, radar is a line-of-sight tool, I really doubt the plane would have been displayed on radar at a low altitude.

You ask, "What assures you that a plane actually crashed there?" IMO this is the wrong way to go about it. We should look at what most probably happened.

You appear to be claiming that much of the debris and remains were planted after 9/11. Is this the case, or are you saying something else?

"Btw care to explain Woody Box's finding why there are apparently two different planes around 9:50 considered to have been UA 93?"
I must have sinned in a past life. Let's have a link and I'll have a look at it.

Nobody saw the plane go to Indian Lake Airport, nobody saw it there. Everybody went to the crash site. If there was no crash there, why would they go to the crash site? I don't understand what you're claiming at all. Was the plane a hologram? Were there multiple holograms? Was there a real plane? What?

As for why I think it crashed there, well, off the top of my head:
(1) There was a big airplane-shaped hole;
(2) Radar returns showed it going there (or rather somewhere near there) and not coming out;
(3) Eyewitnesses on the ground went there, rather indicating that's where they thought it went; i.e. nobody saw the plane leaving Shanksville - it was a big plane - if it didn't crash there and it was a real plane, how did it get away without anybody seeing it?
(4) The phonecalls;
(5) Remains were found. I believe the coroner. If you don't think he's straight-up, how can you rely on him for one of your main points?
(6) Debris were found;
(7) It was hit with a missile a couple of minutes beforehand - how much longer could it fly?

[Andre II]

48. Bending

It's hilly there, radar is a line-of-sight tool, I really doubt the plane would have been displayed on radar at a low altitude.

What relation does have the radar issue with the question if a plane caused the crater or not?

You ask, "What assures you that a plane actually crashed there?" IMO this is the wrong way to go about it. We should look at what most probably happened.
No, wrong. It's you who stated that you're HAPPY with the crash site. So it's not a question of probability but you're psitively sure based on what has been found at the crash site that it was caused by an airplane. Please show it!
You've made the positive statement. You've to prove it. But instead you always and always use teh same technique and only ask questions without answering my questions. So, go ahead. Prove that a plane caused the crater. Shouldn't be too difficult, should it?

You appear to be claiming that much of the debris and remains were planted after 9/11. Is this the case, or are you saying something else?
Well, take the word of the coroner:
“He (Coroner Wallace Miller) was stunned at how small the smoking crater looked, he says, ‘like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8¬Found=true
Let's say from everything I've read it shouldn't have been too difficult to prepare the faked crater and eg explode a bomb when the plane that all witnesses only saw vanishing behind the trees passed over the crash site.


"Btw care to explain Woody Box's finding why there are apparently two different planes around 9:50 considered to have been UA 93?"
I must have sinned in a past life. Let's have a link and I'll have a look at it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x77237


Nobody saw the plane go to Indian Lake Airport, nobody saw it there. Everybody went to the crash site. If there was no crash there, why would they go to the crash site? I don't understand what you're claiming at all. Was the plane a hologram? Were there multiple holograms? Was there a real plane? What?Kevin Fenton, you're a very intelligent person. You can't be serious here.
How far is Indian Lake Airport from the crash site? About 45 seconds flight.
Nobody saw it there. Wow, that's surprsing for an airport that officially has been closed.
Everybody went to the crash site. Wow that's surprising, too. A plane flies extremely low, vanished behind trees and then an explosion and a huge cloud of smoke. Hm, who wouldn't have made the assumption that the plane crashed at the crash site? But it's an assumption. No proof. It's an assumption as well that the plane continued it's way and the crash site was prepared. Given what's found at teh crash site it doesn't convince me a plane crashed there.


Your arguments:
(1) There was a big airplane-shaped hole
How big is it? Isn't it a fact that NOT A SINGLE witness estimated the gouge at least the size of the tail of a 757?
Btw you state "airline-shaped hole". Yeah, it's beautiful but not possible if the plane crashed at 45° as you indicated somewhere. It is only possible if the plane crashed at 90°. Question: At what altitude does a plane need to fly if it seen basically flying horizontally and then crashed at an 90° angle?

(2) Radar returns showed it going there (or rather somewhere near there) and not coming out;
The plane was below radar. This is completely insignificant.

(3) Eyewitnesses on the ground went there, rather indicating that's where they thought it went; i.e. nobody saw the plane leaving Shanksville - it was a big plane - if it didn't crash there and it was a real plane, how did it get away without anybody seeing it?
Yes, that's where they "thought" the crash site was. True. But what does it prove. A prepared crash site plus let's say Lee Purbaugh who prepared it and pushed the button for the explosion.
Kevin, it's not significant how many people thought the plane crashed that but how many people saw the plane crashing there.

(4) The phonecalls;
I leave aside that the calls are full of contradictions.
How do the phone calls prove that the plane crashed at the crash site??

(5) Remains were found. I believe the coroner. If you don't think he's straight-up, how can you rely on him for one of your main points?
I believe the coroner. So, indicate me the remains found that prove to you that a plane crashed there.
Sorry, some small traces of human remains foud weeks later and used for the DNA hardly prove anything. No problem to plant them later.
Explain the absence of blood.

(6) Debris were found;
Sso, all the debris big as a phone book (show me anything bigger as a phone book found on 911) prove to you that a plane crashed there, right.
Show me just a single crash that resembles the total destruction of this plane.

(7) It was hit with a missile a couple of minutes beforehand - how much longer could it fly?
Proof for this claim?

[Woody Box]

19. Poor questions

(1) Why does the place where the postulated substitute crash planes came from matter? The difficulties to answer this question are in no way obstacles for a plane swap scenario. Anyway, in the case of Flight 11, we DO have a plausible answer: Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

The first outside word that controllers received was that a small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center. They thought it was a twin-engine Cessna that had taken off earlier from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to fly south under "visual flight rules," meaning the plane was not under direct air traffic control.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wpost091701.html

(2) A.K. Dewdney's "Operation Pearl" is known since 2 1/2 years now, don't you know it? Whether the attacks happened as described in this scenario is doubtable; the point is, however, that Dewdney demonstrates how easy it is to deceive the air traffic controllers lest they notice a plane swap on their radar screens.

The necessity to deceive ATC is emphasized by all plane swappers. Your objection is obsolete.

(3) The transcripts don't cover the flights continuously. Never heard of Flight 175 changing the transponder code twice within in a minute? Is it really too far-fetched to think of a plane swap here?

(4) The belongings of the passengers could have easily moved to the crash sites by some moles within the FBI. The DNA of the WTC passengers has not been picked up at the crash site, but at Fresh kills (I'm not 100% sure, will try to verify that). Concerning Flight 93: Never heard of coroner Wally Miller? Never read the articles of John Doe II? :spank:

[Old and In the Way]

5. How much time would this scenario require?

Land the planes, disembark, make calls, get on another plane and become victims? Seems like there could be no timeline that would accommodate such an involved sceanrio.

[stickdog]

8. Sure it could if you made the calls from the second plane.

Why is there a time limit on when they could have become victims?

In any case, IIRC, Flight 93 made 80% to 90% of the initially reported calls to victims' families, and that one may have been the exception.

[Old and In the Way]

11. Landing/moving the people/taking off again....

30 minutes minimum, more like 45, I'd think.

[stickdog]

20. From military base with the planes almost empty?

Why?

Furthermore, they could have made the calls from the base, the told they were being moved to a secure location.

[petgoat]

7. Sounds plausible, except the shoot-down part

I don't think there's a place east of the Mississippi where you could shoot down a plane without people
knowing about it.

(Makes for kind of an interesting movie plot idea... hunters out in the woods, plane crashes, they try to report it, men in black come and intimidate them....)

[stickdog]

9. How about over the Atlantic where war games were taking place?

[petgoat]

12. All right, assuming you could block the radar traces to get

them over the sea, or somehow shut up the ATCs who saw them go.

I asked MercutioATC flat out: "If the war games are classified, are your instructions to
say you can't talk about them, or to say there were none."

He hasn't been seen in this forum since.

[mirandapriestly]

13. Oh, so that's what happened, hmmm....nt

[Make7]

14. He hasn't been seen in this forum since? Since when?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=77219&mesg_id=77312

[petgoat]

16. Ah, so he made one hit-and-run flash appearance

in which someone commented on his absence and noted that he hadn't answered
another pending question.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Make7]

24. I just wish you could make your point....

... without saying something that is simply not true.

- Make7

[petgoat]

36. I believed it to be true, and it's false only technically

The point remains. With two questions pending, Mercutio is suddenly making himself unavailable.

[Make7]

43. I apologize for suggesting you should not make "technically" false claims.

It just seems odd for someone that sees fit to admonish others for believing things "without bothering to investigate." Why would you not bother enough to do a search to determine whether or not the information you were about post was actually accurate?

A couple weeks ago you wrote: "Apparently his most recent post was 1/29." But, of course, that was also "technically" false - he had made a post the day before that.

- Make7

[MrSammo1]

26. where you could shoot down a plane without people

They shot down a plane?

I wasn't aware of that?

[rman]

25. So there were both 'real' terrorists

and govt criminals involved?

The govt was interfering with the terrorist plot -and- killed US citizens?

Doesn't make much sense to me.


My take is RC planes were used a la Operation Northwoods. Meaning there were no passengers and no crew on the planes that crashed. Swapping of planes may have been involved and if any passengers were involved they were disappeared.

[Peter Frank]

27. They had to have been killed, one way or another...

911 was a sysops operation on America. If the perps had no prob killing the unsuspecting inhabitants of the towers -- why should the alleged passengers warrant a different fate?

[rman]

31. sysops?

what does that mean?

[dailykoff]

28. Here's my guess:

1. Most passengers were real, though some may not have been.

2. Of the real passengers, most were killed, though some may not have been.

3. Of the killed passengers, some may have been innocent. but most were Pentagon patsies who thought they were participating in a wargame. Ditto any hijackers.

4. Some Pentagon assets may not have been killed, but exited instead during a plane swap.

5. The killed passengers transferred in Cleveland to the Shanksville plane, which was blown up in midair using high explosives.

6. Some passengers may have been killed by other means and their body parts distributed at the Pentagon, though I doubt that was necessary.

7. There were no passengers on either of the aircraft that hit the WTC, which may or may not have been planes.

And that's how it looks to me.

[Peter Frank]

29. Please explain...

...which may or may not have been planes.

I want to know what you mean.

[dailykoff]

30. I don't think they were passenger planes

mainly because the still and video photography of planes that I've seen appears to be fake. Of course I haven't seen all of it and I wasn't an eyewitness.

There are a couple of other reasons that I can explain if you like.

That seems to leave some kind of military aircraft or missile, but I don't know enough about either at this point to be more specific.

[libnnc]

45. gutted out 727s

empty and flown into WTC via remote control. My partner is an ATCer and also ex-Navy. She knows the military has the technology to:

1. Steal civilian aircraft's transponder codes.
2. Fly remote control "drones".

What if the planes that flew into the WTC were empty 727s and the "real" flights (where the passengers really were) were shot down over the Atlantic before they came into contact with NY TRACON?

[MercutioATC]

46. I go away for a couple of weeks and you regress to THIS???

C'mon...you can do better than that.

You KNOW what I'm gonna say. The radar data just doesn't support your contention (pesky thing, that radar). It just didn't happen.

[Peter Frank]

47. Makes some sense but...

...plese explain how this could be done within the time-line of events?