911 Twin Towers: Third Plane

[segovius]

It is possible to cite many, many anomalies surrounding 911 without resorting to conspiracy theory (not without being accused of it though alas) as these anomalies are based on undeniable facts.

These facts come to light continually and are ignored - and if somehow they reach the light of day - 'explained away' (usually in a lame and stupid fashion) on an equally regular basis.

Consider this one: evidence has now emerged - though naturally this will never filter down to common knowledge - that there was a third plane in the vicinity of the towers at the time they were hit on 911.

How do we know and why does it matter?

Well, we know because there are unequivocal videos extant as well as a media mention at the time (see pics and links below) and it matters because no-one has ever mentioned it.

Why not?

What possible reason - if such a plane existed - could there be for not mentioning it in possibly the biggest, most researched and most media covered tragedy ever?

If it was a commercial passenger plane then there would be a record of its take off and landing. If it was a hijacked plane also then why do we not know? If it was not a hijacked plane then why have we not heard of it? What was it doing there?

Surely no pilot would fly past the burning towers risking the passengers lives? And how could they in the state of emergency? And if they did somehow manage to why would no-one ever even hear about it? The testimony of the passengers and pilot would be big news?

You see, this is what its really all about: legitimate questions - just asking 'why?' I am not saying that this plane was part of a conspiracy or this or that. Just asking 'what is going on and why has this not been mentioned?'. If sane, believable answers are forthcoming on this and many other issues then one can just say "oh, I see, that makes sense...".

But we can't say that. Because it doesn't make sense. And because no-one has ever mentioned it - not the military, not the 911 Commission. No-one.

Here are the pictures:

Wmv of mystery plane (http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/911.wtc.yet.another.plane.wmv)

Another different one (www.areadownload.com/video/wtc/WTC%20-%20Amateur%20Video%2004.mpg)

In this one the mystery plane is visible on the right side of the video a few seconds after the main plane hits the tower and before the camera pans back.

Another one (http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.plane.circling.around.wmv)

This one is a news report discussing the third plane with shots of it also.

This is a news report a plane was in the air after the two planes hit (http://www.terrorize.dk/911/flight11/911.wtc.the.real.flight.11.ng.wmv )

Thoughts? What is going on?

[Aurora]

So what are you trying to say, 911 wasnt done by Bin laden and his team of Suadi's?:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
So what are you trying to say, 911 wasnt done by Bin laden and his team of Suadi's?:lol:

I'm not 'trying' to say anything - I AM saying something and it is coherently outlined above.

If you face challenges understanding any of the structure or formation of my portent then I am afraid I am not qualified to assist you but I might venture to suggest that there are myriad resources available online these days that may be of value.

Hope this helps. :D

[Aurora]

We had thousands of witnesses, Bin Laden & boys admitted the attack and there are allways lots of planes in the air around any major city. The conspiracy is that we attacked Iraq and not Bush's long time buddies the Saudi's. Thats the real conspiracy. Not who accomplished 911.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Aurora
We had thousands of witnesses, Bin Laden & boys admitted the attack and there are allways lots of planes in the air around any major city. The conspiracy is that we attacked Iraq and not Bush's long time buddies the Saudi's. Thats the real conspiracy. Not who accomplished 911.

Ok, I repost:

I am not saying that this plane was part of a conspiracy or this or that. Just asking 'what is going on and why has this not been mentioned?'

I view both the conspiracy nuts and the people who reduce all issues to the conspiracy theorists domain (if only to ignore the issues) as barking mad, clinically insane and symptoms of the woeful lunacy that our society has pitifully been degraded to.

This is not a thread about conspiracy theories, Bin Laden or Bush. It is about some video footage of a plane that has never been discussed as being there.

if you have an overwhelming need to discuss conspiracy theories, Bin Laden or Bush then start a thread. You're OT and derailing.

[SDW2001]

This is not something I've heard of, but here goes: My initial reaction is that the plane is not as close to the towers as it appears to be. Even if it is, the video is shot early in the attack (though the time would appear inaccurate), no? Air traffic may not have been grounded yet. It's not unreasonable to assume that this was part of normal air traffic passing by at the time of the attack. Planes were not grounded immediately. According to the timeline, an area wide flight ban did happen until 9:03 a.m. (approx). All things considered, it would likely be normal air traffic.

[New]

Seg. You cannot expect us not to discuss conspiracy theories in such a thread.

You raise an interesting question. I don't have the answers, to little information is available. Can't somebody call someone and ask?

I have some other questions regarding a conspiracy;

- Given that Osama wanted to attack the US, why is a conspiracy needed?

- Does the discussion of a conspiracy actually reduce the focus on the real problem? (Mid-east and islam-related international politics)



Personally I feel that all this "But the pieces don't fit" is interesting but much easier to target by the rigth wing, than it is to defend the Bush administrations foreign policy. So we end up, in a typical mid-eastern situation, where we can't get further in discussing the real problems, because there is to much noise derailing everything.

Like going around claiming AIDS was invented by the CIA. It really only derails the effort to fight the disease.

[segovius]

New: I think we can and should avoid conspiracy talk. I mean look, by now no-one is really going to change position and we all have made up our minds about what we think as is our right.

I think the discussion can move on to another level: ie discussion of issues or facts in relation to themselves regardless of our positions and regardless of conclusions.

This is one thing I think that Bush - or more properly the zeitgeist that Bush and Blair are manifestations of - has robbed us of: the right and even ability to discuss things regardless of context. You simply cannot do this now and we need to claim it back.

Aurora's response was a text-book example. We simply cannot look at issues in isolation anymore if they impinge on larger issues. this is bad and we need to fix it. Forget conspiracies and bin Laden. Back to basics: what is the plane doing there?

If we take this approach as a society then we will grow because the truth is what matters. Maybe that truth is advantageous to the left, maybe to the right but all I am saying is that the TRUTH should be the thing. not an idea of truth as we would like it to be.

SDW: all reasonable points. Thank you. I don't know whether they are the explanation but they could be.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
According to the timeline, an area wide flight ban did happen until 9:03 a.m. (approx). All things considered, it would likely be normal air traffic. Which was exactly the time the 2nd plane hit.

Look up into any major city and tell me if you see any planes, segovius. No one knew what was going on yet, and there were still planes in the sky. It was just 15 minutes after the first plane hit. It would be amazing if all planes got grounded that quickly after what seemed like an isolated accident.

[New]

I agree. As far as facts can be objective. They often cannot.

This example suffers from lack of clear and neutral expertise. So I don't expect it in any way to be solved unless it is properly researched by someone, scientifically, in real life.

[shetline]

Originally posted by segovius
Surely no pilot would fly past the burning towers risking the passengers lives? And how could they in the state of emergency? And if they did somehow manage to why would no-one ever even hear about it? The testimony of the passengers and pilot would be big news?
I apologize in advance if this strikes you as, "'explained away' (usually in a lame and stupid fashion)", but I don't think there's anything extraordinary here at all.

The first video looks like it was shot shortly after the first plane struck -- it's hard to tell, but I can only see one tower on fire. The time stamp on the video has to be wrong, as it says 7:58 AM -- the first strike did not occur until 8:45.

If this is indeed before the second strike, no flight ban had been called yet. The flight ban was not called until 9:17*, 14 minutes after the second strike at 9:03. The air space around the WTC is typically very busy, so seeing another plane going by shortly after the first strike doesn't seem peculiar at all. Even if the flight ban had already been called, it took, at a guess, a couple of hours to clear the skies, even with every plane forced to land at the nearest airport -- it's not like three seconds after a flight ban is declared that all planes will have suddenly dropped from the sky like flies.

Further, notice how much of a zoom factor is involved in the first video. When the scene zooms out at the end, it appears that the video was shot from a fairly distant vantage point, like from across the Hudson in NJ -- from inside Hoboken, at a guess? At any rate, at such a long zoom the "mystery" plane could have been, and most likely was, several miles away from the towers, not flying anywhere nearby at all, even if this footage might give that illusion.

In the second and third videos, the extra planes I see do look pretty far away. It's hard to even tell if they are the same planes or not. The third video has either a bad time stamp, or the time shown of 8:04 is Central Time -- as both towers are burning, 8:04 CT, or 9:04 ET, would be in the minute after the second strike.

So, what do I make of this? One or more planes seen flying in the busy air space in the vicinity of the WTC, not dangerously close, in the time before the flight ban was declared, and well before much of the then in-flight traffic could land. I'm afraid I'm going to have to make the terrible, letting-the-powers-that-be-manipulate-me mistake of dismissing this as completely unnoteworthy.

*Edit: 9:17 was when NYC airports were closed. A complete flight ban was not called until 9:40. With NYC airports closed, all flights would have had to clear the WTC area to land at other airports elsewhere fairly quickly, but still not soon enough or early enough to make seeing other planes in the sky near the WTC, in the time between the two strikes, or shortly after the second strike, a remarkable or suspicious thing.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by segovius

[quote]I view both the conspiracy nuts and the people who reduce all issues to the conspiracy theorists domain (if only to ignore the issues) as barking mad, clinically insane and symptoms of the woeful lunacy that our society has pitifully been degraded to.

Amen. Hopefully this kneejerk aspect of the subject can be consigned to the swingtop filing cabinet where it belongs.

****

Ok back on topic:

In 1945, a ten ton B-25 bomber crashed into the 78th floor of the Empire State Building (http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm) . This is an obvious reason why commercial air traffic over Manhattan is subject to specific restrictions:

To quote:

"Let us consider the commercial air traffic on a typical Tuesday morning over New York City. There are three major airports servicing the city: La Guardia and JFK International to the east, and Newark International across the Hudson to the west. Normal holding patterns for these airports do not intersect the borough of Manhattan at any point. Lower Manhattan is, and was on the morning of 9/11/01, a low-altitude flight-restricted (no fly) zone for commercial jets, as designated by the FAA, for the obvious reason that heavy, fast-moving aircraft and tall buildings pose mutual hazards. Air traffic near the WTC towers was doubly restricted, with a minimum ceiling extending two thousand feet above the towers (3,300 feet) within a radius of one nautical mile, excepting only police aviation without special permit. These were the VFR (visual flight rules) parameters in effect on the morning of 9/11. Once WTC1 was hit, the black smoke plume expanding southeast from the tower would pose an additional threat to navigation.

**

However: from a single video, there is no way of telling how far the plane is from either the camera, or how far the plane is from the restricted area around Manhattan. This also makes for other unknowns re. both the size of the plane, and its speed. It looks a little like a passenger plane, but whether its a smaller executive type jet closer in, or a larger commercial jet further away, is anybody's guess.. but... if the multiple video sources from different really do refer to the same plane, it should be possible to determine fairly accurately, the size, speed, altitude and direction of travel of the plane.

If it was violating the inplace restrictions then one has to ask just (a) who gave it permission to fly there, and (b) who was flying it, especially since two nearby buildings had already been deliberately hit by rogue planes. Also one should also ask why this plane hadn't already been challenged by the USAF according to standard protocol, especially since the first hijacking allegedly took place at 8-14, some 50 minutes or so before the video was shot, and Langley AFB is a few minutes flight time from Manhattan for F-15s in full afterburn.

[segovius]

Sammi Jo - slightly OT but reading your post made me think of something: why did the NY hijackers not hijack a plane from (say) La Guardia or some other NY airport?

Surely in such an operation the time saved would be invaluable and this is exactly the sort of detail they would consider in planning. Why go from Boston to NYC? It means more time for things to go wrong.

[Northgate]

This is unrelated. But I do think the crash of the plane on Long Island a few days after 911 was, in fact, a terrorist act and I do believe the government covered it up in order to suppress hysteria.

Flame away.

[New]

Originally posted by segovius
Sammi Jo - slightly OT but reading your post made me think of something: why did the NY hijackers not hijack a plane from (say) La Guardia or some other NY airport?
because it was harder?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by segovius
Sammi Jo - slightly OT but reading your post made me think of something: why did the NY hijackers not hijack a plane from (say) La Guardia or some other NY airport?

Surely in such an operation the time saved would be invaluable and this is exactly the sort of detail they would consider in planning. Why go from Boston to NYC? It means more time for things to go wrong.

Yes, a little offtopic, but what we have been asked to acknowledge, as regards the intentional flightpaths taken by the commandeered planes is absurd and illogical and (by all rights) would lessened the probability of success by a huge factor, in the minds of the planners. Especially, consider the path of Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon at 9-38, almost an hour and a half after it was known by ATC and NORAD that at least one hijacked plane was on the loose... and some 35 minutes after it was known that the attacks on the WTC were deliberate.

But stangest of all... is that having taken off from Dulles (within proverbial spitting distance from the Pentagon in the first place), the alleged attackers elected to fly the plane due west as far as the Kentucky border (!?!) passing over numerous AFBs on both out and back portions of the journey, in the most heavily monitored airspace on the planet, then performing a feat of aerobatics, described by ATC radar operators as "extraordinarily skilled" in order to hit a the part of one the most heavily guarded buildings in the nation that didn't contain the offices of the most significant figures in the administration and military. Somehow, the guy who was incapable of handling a Cessna somehow managed pull this off without the slightest hint of interference. Had standard protocols been followed, as they had been on 61 other occasions that year flawlessly, that plane (as well as the 3 others) would each have had a squadron of fighter planes swarming all around them within minutes of first signs of trouble. The logical inference is that whoever was in control of that (and the other) planes somehow knew in advance that these "theoretically doomed plans" would somehow succeed.

So, why did the alleged hijackers, knowing that the standard protocol was most efficient and rigorously adhered to by "suited and ready", highly skilled USAF pilots at numerous AFBs in the eastern third of the country, deliberately go out of their way to endanger their mission by flying these long, circuitous paths lasting for up to an hour and 20 minutes?

Can anyone cast light on this? It makes no sense.
Please reply privately if following this "thread within a thread" derails the original point.

[New]

and here we go...

[segovius]

Another strange thing is the public service record (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90306) of the four planes involved at 911.

Two (AA) are listed as cancelled and destroyed on 911 but two (United) were not labeled as being taken out of service until four years later.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by segovius
Another strange thing is the public service record (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90306) of the four planes involved at 911.

Two (AA) are listed as cancelled and destroyed on 911 but two (United) were not labeled as being taken out of service until four years later.

Additionally, the NTSB is mandated by law to provide a detailed report and analysis of any and all airplane accidents within the US. None of the airplanes destroyed in 9-11 have been subject to these mandatory NTSB examinations.

Why?

[Harald]

Originally posted by sammi jo


Why?

More then likely because someone fucked up. One of two airlines.

[Aquatic]

I would assume the NSA reads threads you post segovius. I'm not joking. It is actually very, very scary. I followed the advice from another user here, sondjata, and did traceroute to the NSA and as he claimed, an entry from AT&T was there, the one for the room they set up for the NSA to monitor traffic. Creepy. This country is hurtling toward Orwellianism. I couldn't believe it at first, but after this whole NSA thing (esp. because it was before 9/11) I'm just floored. Shocked. Horrified. I'd say be careful what books you take from the library, too. :(

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Harald
More then likely because someone fucked up. One of two airlines.

It is not up to the airlines; they have zero say in the matter. The NTSB is required by law to investigate any and all air traffic "incidents".. including near collisions where no accident happened, even minor events with private planes, such as a Cessna overshooting a runway.

NTSB database link (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp)