Before reading this post, please see my 9/11 disclaimer.
Since publishing “9/11 Simplified,” I’ve received emails from six pilots, none of whom accept the official 9/11 story. Two were scheduled to fly in Boeings on the morning of 9/11.
Another is a UK-born pilot with about 20 years of flight experience. He is still actively flying as a captain on Airbus A300s, and spent many years training airline pilots. He has provided me with so many technological insights into aviation and 9/11 that I felt I should publish excerpts from our exchanges. For enhancement, I have added a few graphics and embedded some of the video clips he referred me to. For clarity, my comments are in bold and his in normal font. Of course, what we originally said has been rearranged into a more orderly sequence.
To keep his identity confidential, I’ll call him “Pilot A.” Some of his remarks bear on 9/11 in general, and some are specific to my article “9/11 Simplified,” so it will be helpful to readers if they are familiar with that post, which I may eventually republish in a revised edition.
Pilot A greeted me saying:
Great shows about “9-11 simplified” and I agree with most of your analysis so far, so please keep up the good work.
He knew from personal experience that the U.S. government’s theory of how the Twin Towers collapsed is bogus.
I know, like many others do, that heavy fuel like diesel and jet fuel cannot melt steel. Even Oxy-Acetylene or Oxy-Propane cutting torches require large amounts of high pressure oxygen injected into the fuel stream to melt steel, and it takes some time to get thick steel up to a softening/melting state. I went to tech college in the 90s to qualify as a welder and gas cutting was one of the disciplines. I’ve spend countless hours cutting and fabricating steel. I had an experience with an old 600 gallon diesel tank which I was cutting the top off to convert into a storage box. In the bottom below the drain plug level was some remaining fuel and sludge, but as I got about 3/4 of the way through cutting the lid off, the molten metal ignited the fuel in the bottom. The dirty fire that poured out the top burned for about 30 minutes, but the wafer thin (3 mm) steel didn’t even glow.
Pilot A agreed with my article’s 10-point proposal that small nuclear weapons had destroyed the Towers, and also agreed with the thesis that pre-planted thermite had indeed been used at the level of the “airplane strikes.” Most of us in the 9/11 community have seen the famous footage of molten steel dripping from a corner of the South Tower:
However, Pilot A had an insight about this I had not thought of:
Now I do think they used thermite as it was probably part of the structural weakening component, but could also have been part of the show to try and prove that “Look, jet fuel does melt steel!”
In my article I had discussed various evidences against jetliners striking the Towers, such as the uncontrollable speeds, and the impossible physics of an aluminum tail and wings and flying through 14-inch steel columns without breaking off. I had concluded that cloaked missiles, or possibly drones, were better explanations. I ask Pilot A what the likelihood was of commercial jetliners hitting the Towers:
Well, I have a couple of extra variables to your main idea for you to play with so here goes:
If you’re going to plan a dastardly event like a “New Pearl Harbour” to achieve all the things like more war, military spending, contracts for the corporate criminals, police state etc., then you want as much shock and horror as possible which includes, noise, fire, smoke and destruction on steroids. The planners would need this area of the operation a guaranteed certainty, no chance of foul-ups anywhere, total control, no variables, flawless. You wouldn’t use actual commercial jetliners piloted by humans to achieve this, too much to go wrong. E.g., the pilots could “chicken-out,” miss the towers, partially hit the towers, passengers could over-run the cockpit, the jet fuel might not ignite so no fire and explosion (more on that later), the damage to the building might be too little, pathetically small even, rogue military pilot ignoring orders to buzz off somewhere else might actually shoot the planes down . . . and on and on it goes.
What’s better than planes flying into buildings? The illusion of planes flying into buildings. Especially if it’s a high explosive/incendiary guided missile with some sort of holographic projection device strapped to its back. Better still let’s have 3 or 4 of them for damage consistency to really make a statement. These can be controlled by a central source, have a known and guaranteed outcome because the military has umpteen thousand examples of the destructive power of missiles, and they can be sent to a specific target with pin point accuracy and timing – perfect.
Passenger planes are very difficult to fly accurately with only external visual reference. With no electronic guidance or without heads-up display technology it’s too risky to try and fly into a specific point by line of sight. Not all pilots have the same level of skill or experience, and this sort of thing you only get to practice for real once!! Simulators have their limits as well for this sort of practice. I can almost see the pilots that have probably tried this in the simulators and predict the outcomes. An educated guess would be overcompensation to try and maintain an accurate flight path at high speed. The air that planes fly through isn’t always constant. There are pools and eddies like a river with rocks, changing currents and speeds. All these require constant adjustment which is easily achieved on approach at 140 knots, with all the control surfaces moving at their full potential and the aircraft slow enough to keep inertia to a minimum. But completely impossible for a novice pilot with only some light aircraft flight experience.
I don’t know how you could do a last-minute modification to a flight path to achieve this accuracy at the speed they were supposedly traveling. Once you get above 200 knots all the moving surfaces (Ailerons, Elevators, Rudder) are in high speed mode and become either artificially loaded or movement restricted to prevent excessive loading and structural damage. If you were slightly off course, you couldn’t make any large corrections to the trajectory at the last minute; everything is done gently. Plus eye-balling your way around a city you’ve never flown over before (if you believe the Muslim hijacker theory) is near impossible, even for a local city dweller! The city layout is different when looking down on it and the view from the flight deck is very limited, unlike a Cessna which has great views. And traveling at hundreds of knots makes this all the more idiotic to achieve.
So if the planes missed the towers, or partially struck the towers, or the jet fuel failed to ignite, then the Hollywood-style fireball scene is a flop. Jet fuel, which is basically paraffin, needs certain requirements to burn. Unlike the petrol gas (95/98) stuff that you put in your Chevy, Avtur (Aviation Turbine Fuel) won’t ignite if you pour some on the ground and throw a match or lighter into it. I know, I’ve tried it. It usually requires heat (compression chamber) and/or pressure (injector nozzle) to combust. The likelihood, though, is that it would probably ignite because the engines were hot, but not guaranteed especially if the engines sheared off on the outside of the building. Yet more variables.
But the main problems I have with the plane crashes shown on TV is the lack of fuselage crumpling effect, therefore showing no deceleration at all and the complete melting of the entire machine into the buildings with no debris shattering off on the outside and dropping to the street. The wing’s strength is primarily in the vertical axis, they’re built for lifting so they would shear off at the root upon contact with anything solid. That large leading edge surface area and leverage against the wing root would rip them completely off. Try walking through a doorway with your arms stretched out and feel the force on your shoulders as your arms try to go through the wall. Now the fuel tanks might rupture and some of the fuel might go into the building, but no way the entire plane would.
Also aeroplanes are a semi-monocoque construction like an egg (monocoque) with a frame inside it. But the skin is pulled over the frame under a lot of tension to maintain aerofoil shape and increase strength. But when this highly strung aluminium skin is ruptured; it springs off as the tension is released. In fact it almost explodes off if a large enough area is damaged. Watch the wing and tail of this ATR as it clips a bridge in Taiwan shortly before crashing:
Notice how little damage was done to the bridge, but aeroplane bits flew everywhere. Essentially, and most people don’t want to hear this, but aeroplanes are hollow tubes of flying tin foil. They look big and solid from the outside but they’re hollow, light and flimsy in reality. They’re only designed to fly people and cargo around in relatively gentle conditions, but ramming solid objects, even water, will obliterate them. Aeroplanes literally shatter. They certainly won’t cut through concrete or steel – UTTER NONSENSE! No matter what the speed is. Every crash has similar evidence, but not on 9-11; they were super special flying machines on that day!! I bet even Boeing and Airbus engineers have scratched many a head and nut since then!
Then there is the preposterous speeds they appeared to fly before hitting the towers, but the real nail in this coffin is “Pinocchio’s Nose,” the clip where one of the aircraft appears to fly right through the building with its nose intact. That did it for me . . . CGI and/or holographic projection the whole show. The nose is fibreglass, always fibreglass so the radar can work. It couldn’t punch through glass and remain intact let alone concrete and steel.
(Here is a 7-minute video that elaborates about the intact nose exiting from the South Tower)
In one email, Pilot A had mentioned that “the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot system that is apparently fitted to Fly-By-Wire [computer-regulated] aircraft couldn’t be used either because the B757 and B767 [the planes used on 9/11] were conventional aircraft like the A300. FBW only came in with the A320, 330, B777 and later machines.”
However, I wanted to pursue the possibility of remote-controlling the planes further with Pilot A, because that theory has long been very popular in the 9/11 Truth community. I pointed out to him that Joe Vialls had proposed this in October 2001, just a month after the tragedy. I also mentioned that Hollywood had dropped hints about it. For example, an electronic hijacking of a plane with the intention of remoting it into the World Trade Center was predicted in the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which aired March 4, 2001:
Parts of Pilot A’s reply may contain more technical details than some people want to absorb (in which case they may of course skip ahead), but I believe he resolves this important question.
Ok, I just read the article by Vialls, but it’s only about 60% accurate when talking about aircraft systems with some very important points left out, either deliberately or through lack of knowledge. We’ve both heard about remote jacking a plane using Home Run or Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot etc., and theoretically it’s possible in a fly-by-wire (FBW) machine, but physically impossible in a conventional aeroplane unless some engineer out there wants to explain to me how to overpower my muscles. Here goes:
Conventional aeroplanes like the B757, B767, A300, etc. have a control yoke and pedals operating cables running the entire length and width of the aeroplane to the parallel actuators (hydraulic rams) which are directly connected to the moving surfaces like the elevators, rudder and ailerons. So when the pilot places a physical input into the control column, he is moving that cable along the various pulleys all the way to a lever/switch on the hydraulic rams, which in turn move the flight control surface, e.g. aileron. There are no computers in this basic operation, which is what made the old-generation aircraft so dependable in basic flight handling.
In a FBW system [on the other hand] there are no cables. The pilot has a joystick and when he moves it, it sends an electronic signal to a computer (or series of computers) which in turn decides how much to move the aeroplane by sending a signal to the hydraulic rams that operate the elevators, etc. Essentially the computer makes a series of logic calculations and has the final word in whether to allow the pilot to manoeuvre the aeroplane in such a way!!! Yes, an early form of Artificial Intelligence, whereby the box decides how to fly the aeroplane. Same goes for the rudder pedals and thrust lever setup. So this could theoretically be hacked, but it wouldn’t come through the transponder system [as Joe Vialls had proposed in 2001] because that is easily switched off; it would more likely come to the Flight Management System (FMS) which has inputs from the many sources, but a main component is the GPS system. The GPS is essential in modern jets for Navigation, updating the aircraft’s position relative to the Earth, etc. The GPS antennae are hard-wired into the FMS and other systems like clocks, Inertial Navigation System (INS) and so on. I think this is the route that hackers would take, so who controls the GPS satellite data could theoretically control the aeroplane. The pilots could be locked out of the control loop of the aeroplane.
As far as data is available, there was only one B757 that was converted to FBW and it was a Boeing test subject and not released into production. It was essentially a Boeing plaything to see how to redesign their machines for the B777 onwards. Boeing have always been behind Airbus in technology, which is why the A300B4 (70s design) was the first semi-glass cockpit to enter production. Boeing copied it and put their own glass tech into their 757 and 767 later, but they were all conventional control machines. Then Airbus created the A320, the first FBW machine, and Boeing copied it with their B777. To back this up, our A300s were fresh off the Airbus factory floor in 2005, and they were not converted to FBW because the redesign and approval costs would be enormous. “Don’t fix what isn’t broken.” Redesigning an aeroplane is a major expense and Airbus would not do this to the A300, neither would Boeing for further productions of B757, 767 etc. It’s cheaper to design a whole new beasty with more advanced tech in other areas too and get a complete new approval.
I hope this clears it up, but I’m 99% sure that the planes on 9-11 were conventional aeroplanes, making it impossible to hack them from a remote source.
However, as Joseph P. Farrell would say, the “hi-octane speculation” of tech outside of our grasp like tractor beams, George Lucas Star Wars stuff, but I think Occam’s razor still prevails here until new evidence emerges maybe in the future to throw all this into a tailspin again!
That episode of The Lone Gunmen could be another predictive programming event. Who controls Hollywood? Could this plan have been in the works many years earlier, and they were already planting the official narrative into people’s minds, so that they could accept the lies as truth later on?
I have also heard it said in the Truth Movement that the jet aircraft could have been drawn to homing devices that were planted in the Twin Towers. Or controlled by some sort of GPS system. After all, haven’t pilotless military planes been auto-landed? I asked Pilot A his opinion. Some of his remarks were again technical, but in such details we find the answers.
I’ve also heard about this mysterious homing device theory, but I haven’t seen any proof this technology exists for aeroplanes, or how it could control an aeroplane to a point in space with pinpoint accuracy. If it did then all our heavy, expensive VHF and UHF receiver equipment would be obsolete and so would all the airport’s transmitter equipment. So I’ve racked my brains trying to find a solution to this homing device problem, and so far I’ve found nothing that makes this possible. Typical Jet airliners have nothing that will integrate into the standard FMS and Automation package. It’s actually pretty crude, but functions well for what it’s supposed to do.
GPS for aviation isn’t accurate enough horizontally, let alone vertically. In fact without GBAS (Ground Based Augmentation Systems), GPS is no better than any other non-precision approach. GPS approaches still cannot achieve a level of accuracy to enable an autoland, you must have ILS (Instrument Landing System) for that. GPS accuracy in an aeroplane on approach is pretty consistent down to 0.1 nautical miles either side of track, because the system is enhanced with Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), part of GBAS. Autoland is only achieved through the ILS and this system homes in on a large ground-based antenna array (localiser) by measuring frequency differential in azimuth (horizontal) and vertical guidance (glideslope) again a transmitter sending out two lobes of differing frequency. So unless the “Art students” in the World Trade Center installed a large number of complex antenna array, then this is not possible. Also after installation, and periodically, an ILS system has to be calibrated and this is done with another aeroplane loaded up with electronic equipment, which then flies multiple approaches to tweak the transmitter frequencies. Here’s a link to a description of this system. http://instrument.landingsystem.com/
Even if they could install an ILS transmitter array, an approaching aeroplane flying at several hundred miles an hour just cannot react quickly enough in the fluid dynamics of the environment. Another one of the reasons we have to slow down before intercepting the ILS. Because the ILS is conical in shape and narrows down to a point at the runway, any instability in the approach through over-controlling at high speed will just result in the magnitude of the oscillations increasing. That’s complex speak for a sort of “porpoising” effect like a dolphin swimming through water, but the movements of the body increase, chasing the instability until the aircraft literally flies off the approach path. The autopilot system just can’t do it at these alleged speeds. Missiles can achieve a much higher level of accuracy because they are very manoeuvrable; aeroplanes with huge inertia are not. This is why strike missiles are small, plus they have a completely different hardware and software setup inside. The bigger they are, the more sluggish they become. Some strike missiles have cameras in the nose to home in on a target. Some are heat-seeking or need laser guidance from a ground source. Commercial aeroplanes have no camera integrated into the automation system, heat seeking or laser guidance technology. For perspective, the ILS and autoland system which works well still requires a touchdown zone on a runway of +/- 500 feet. That’s as good as it gets, and that’s at a typical approach speed of 140 knots. Missiles are also less subjective to high ‘g’ loading during manoeuvring. If you subjected an aeroplane to these levels of ‘g’ loading, the wings would rip off.
This above paragraph is in any case a moot point because conventional aeroplanes [B757, B767] cannot be hacked.
I thanked Pilot A for his input and added a thought of my own: “Here’s how I look at it. If I’m a passenger on a commercial flight, would I feel more comfortable with (A) two live pilots at the controls, or (B) a plane that’s being flown remotely? I think any passenger would want (A). And that goes for a hijacking too. An intelligence service would be much happier with elite special forces running the show than trying to coordinate the whole operation by remote.” The thesis of my article “9/11 Simplified,” of course, is that the 9/11 aircraft were physically hijacked by Israeli Special Ops pretending to be Muslims (these Special Ops would have been completely familiar with Boeings, loaned to them by El Al with unlimited training assistance). Pilot A:
As a passenger on an airliner you would want real humans at the controls and not a drone style aeroplane like Delta has been trying to push for quite some time now. Fortunately the FAA keeps blocking it, but I heard that the artificial intelligence designers want this in the future. So I guess once people get used to driverless trains and cars, then planes will be next. As each generation becomes more “dumbed down” and ignorant with so many entertainment distractions, they won’t care what’s driving the bus at the front. Most probably won’t even know when it happens anyway.
I next asked Pilot A about the “missile pod” that is so clearly visible on the underside of “Flight 175.”
It definitely (1) is visible on all footage taken from an angle that could catch it; (2) is three-dimensional; and (3) lights up just before striking the South Tower. I regard it as the “smoking gun” which proves that whatever hit the Tower was not Flight 175. Would the 9/11 perpetrators actually try attaching a missile-sized object to Flight 175 at Logan Airport, and then hope that it luckily wouldn’t be noticed by, e.g., the flight maintenance crew or baggage handlers? I asked Pilot A for his thoughts. The following remarks are pulled from more than one email:
I think this is pretty key and keeps us on track. I remember seeing/hearing a bystander in an apartment saying that what he saw was not a commercial airliner. Also the lack of jet noise etc. The screaming noise at those alleged high speeds and low levels, not just from the engines but also from the skin friction, would be obvious and I think many more people would have taken pics. If they were real aeroplanes, then why the missile-looking tube underneath the aircraft? That shouldn’t be there, is completely foreign, serves no logical airline or commercial purpose, and in fact could be downright dangerous due to its proximity to critical components underneath. If I turned up to my aircraft and someone had stuck a funny looking tube thing on the outside of the aircraft, I would refuse to accept it until I’d seen the engineering and installation documentation, Boeing approval, purpose, etc. . . .and even then I still have the right to refuse to take it. Captain’s decision is final and I’ve seen guys refuse to dispatch in aircraft with a lot less wrong with them than that!
I recall in all the books I’ve read about military operations, some fictional by ex-special forces writers, but the overwhelming theme is that when planning any operation, the simpler it is, the better the chance of success. You do however want to cause panic and confusion surrounding the op to keep people distracted and running around in panic. BY WAY OF DECEPTION THOU SHALT WAGE THY WAR! The USS Liberty was a mess up because the ship didn’t sink. If it had, then history would have been re-written. 9-11 HAD to succeed in WTC destruction, so a simple op: Hijack some commercial aeroplanes, make it look like they flew into the buildings using cloaking tech but really destroy them with missiles and mini-nukes, destroy evidence of financial crime, huge insurance claim, bank robbery and terrorise Americans into demanding years of wars against a Muslim foe – mission successful. What you’ve pieced together has the modus operandi of Israel, her special forces along with CIA help as well to complete this.
Yes, the missile-sized object on flight 175 is very important, and part of the pre-flight process is a crew member (either First Officer or Captain) will always do a “walk around” prior to flight. This is standard aviation policy from light aircraft to heavy jet with no exceptions. So not only would ground personnel see this strange object but the flight crew WOULD definitely know about it. Its position on the starboard side, underneath is especially troublesome because as I said before it is highly unlikely it would ever get approval from any governing body to stick a huge object in that location. Among some of the systems in that location are things like the refuel control panel, the air conditioning packs, especially the inlets, the RAT (Ram Air Turbine) deployment area and the undercarriage doors! Your video [about cruise missile noise] is interesting and here’s a link to a B757 doing a high speed fly-by. Listen to the noise difference which is quite pronounced. High By-Pass turbofan engines make a distinct noise signature, totally different to Low By-Pass turbofans like business jets and completely different to “Pure Jet” engines in fighters or cruise missiles. Plenty more examples of low level, high speed fly-bys on YouTube.
I next asked Pilot A for his opinion about the limited airplane debris found around the World Trade Center. This is a huge issue, because for many who are skeptics of 9/11 Truth, the debris is the “smoking gun” that corroborates the government’s official story. Here is a video segment that shows such debris (much of which seems rather vague) and ridicules the idea that it was planted:
I told Pilot A that, on the one hand, it does seems a stretch that airplane debris would be dumped off. Yet there was a lot of pre-planting of small-scale evidence, such as Korans and Mohammed Atta’s luggage (which miraculously didn’t make it onto Flight 11, but had all the “Muslim hijackers” names in it), as well as small-scale evidence after the fact, such as the infamous unburned hijacker passport, and the red headbands at the Shanksville hole. Could the same have been done for some aircraft parts? The “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems. A moving company has large trucks, dollies, and strong workers, which is just what you’d need to plant some heavy items. There was also, of course, the live police report on 9/11 of a truck on King Street which featured a mural of a plane hitting a building—the drivers fled the police on foot, and the truck exploded:
Pilot A sent me a 30-minute video from Pilots from 9/11 Truth that shows just how little 9/11 aircraft debris there actually was in total, and how none of the found parts were linked to the aircraft by their serial numbers, which easily could have been done. He commented:
As for the plane parts, I watched what you sent me and more. Interesting that CNN showed a landing gear part that still had rope attached to it!
I think that’s obvious that there was some degree of evidence planting going on even before the attack. So why would you plant evidence if aircraft actually flew into buildings nearby? If this was a real event then I’m sure the government, mainstream media and all the other agencies would have provided this info. But like the Pentagon debacle with all the confiscated video, it has the definite flair of: just trust us and believe what we say, no questions please!!
My gut feeling is there are too many things wrong with some of the debris to say it is genuine. The piece in the alley wouldn’t naturally have rope around it unless it was put there. And if it was a part of the wing flap assembly or undercarriage, then how did it get so far from the crash site!
That YouTube link I sent you has more weird evidence anomalies in it with the Pentagon, etc. None of it fits neatly if it were a genuine event. Looks like bad stagecraft to me and I agree with what the narrator says, there should be overwhelming evidence of paperwork trails linking these parts to the real owners. All parts have serial numbers and they can be traced to the source aircraft. Why wasn’t this info plastered all over the News to quell the unbelievers’ distrust in the lie? The reason is because they don’t have any genuine parts from the planes used. The mangled plane parts on the day were dumped and had a different history and the organisers couldn’t start dumping too much real plane debris after the event. I think something went wrong on the day, and it’s been damage control through the media ever since. I don’t think they imagined there would be so many people not believing the official lie, and Building 7, the Pentagon and Shanksville are all smoking guns of one sort or another.
I asked Pilot A for his opinion of the most famous piece of debris, the engine found on Murray Street. Some people have said it was too small for a 767.
I wouldn’t say the engine is too small because it looks about the right size for the internal core part. I think people are comparing the size to what you see from the outside, but once you strip away the cowlings, shrouds and other stuff, the internal core is quite small. This clip indicates it is the wrong engine for the B767. However, Pratt and Whitney’s own website says that these engines were fitted to B767.
Nonetheless, I asked, isn’t the engine too big and heavy for someone to have dropped off?
Firstly, when the engine weight of 8000 Lbs is mentioned, this is generally a complete engine including Big Fan at the front, the multiple compressor stages and turbines complete with blades, various pumps, pipes and so much more like the pics I’ve attached for you or the video in the link. It is quite a large mass of hardware, but what we see in that Murray Street image is only a small portion of the engine, the rear or hot section where the turbines are. There is no big fan, compressor stages or ancillary components, so I think its weight looks closer to about a tonne. If that was a solid lump (which it isn’t) of titanium alloy, then based upon its size relative to the Murray Street sign I would put in the ball-park of between 750-1500kg, which a small 4 wheel box-van with a few big guys could roll off the back of in a few seconds after maneuvering the truck into position.
I asked Pilot A where in the world Israelis, or their confederates, could have obtained airline parts.
As for obtaining plane parts, well that is easy. When aircraft are retired they are either scrapped or sometimes sold and then flown to both civilian and military airfields to be used for experimentation, training or tourist attractions. When I was growing up, before 9-11, there was an old B747 at a place called _____ where I used to fly to occasionally, and they used an old 747 to test various explosive devices in the cargo hold to see if containing bags in different materials would limit damage, and eventually it was blown up and the parts removed for recycling etc. This is just one example, so it would be easy to procure parts from an old Boeing for a future event. What I want to see is the maintenance logs showing the paper trail for these parts littered around the WTC, because all parts, even landing gear, have a paper trail. You just can’t buy a tyre from Dunlop or an engine from Pratt and Whitney and stick it on an aircraft without serial numbers matching the logbooks. All parts have a replace date/condition either time or use-based. Engines and their ancillary parts are cycle or hours-based. Landing gear is time, amount of landings, condition-based and all subjected to routine and mandatory maintenance cycles e.g. C or D checks. When an aircraft is too worn out to be commercially viable any longer for an airline, it is sold for either salvageable parts, scrap or to someone who wants to restore it or for a plaything. There’s loads of places they can end up in once sold for non-commercial use, and the parts cannot re-enter the system without a paper trail, they are scrap, unless you are a third world country where anything goes!
In summary to the aircraft debris, was this debris collected and analysed by a professional aviation body like the NTSB Air Crash Investigators, whose job it is to piece together the debris and track its origins, etc.? I don’t recall ever seeing a report on these recovered parts including serial numbers and maintenance logbook evidence.
I now draw excerpts pertaining to my post, “9/11 Simplified,” in which I proposed that Israeli special ops—well-trained on Boeings used by El Al—hijacked the planes and brought them over the neighboring Atlantic, an idea Pilot A is on board with.
In the post, I suggested that the most likely way for the hijackers to kill the passengers would have been to throw a canister of lethal gas into the cabin; the hijackers would have kept themselves safe by staying sealed in the cockpit with oxygen masks on. Initially, Pilot A thought this plausible, but then had his doubts:
I agree that the passengers were killed early on [but] . . . I just took your idea about a gas canister and thought about it from a pilot’s perspective. Why would I use a poison gas canister when the air in the cabin circulates back into the cockpit too? I risk potentially poisoning myself and fellow hijackers!
Pilot A came up with a much safer, more efficient way that the hijackers would have killed the passengers and flight attendants: depressurizing the cabin.
By switching off the AC packs and opening the outflow valves. Once the cabin altitude hits 12-14,000 feet the masks deploy and the passengers have an average of 15 mins oxygen. The flight crew [in the cockpit] have hours of oxygen at their disposal. This is what I think they did to MH370 during the initial phase, because Kuala Lumpur radar said that the B777 climbed above 40,000 for a brief time, which is highly unusual. This would asphyxiate the passengers quite quickly if the cabin was depressurized, but still allow the crew to survive. The flight attendants have a few portable O2 cylinders in the cabin, but they don’t last very long if you’re scared and hyperventilating as you watch passengers fall into unconsciousness and die. And above 40,000 feet you almost need pressurised air forced into your lungs as air on demand is not enough to get over the pressure differential.
(Pilot A spent several paragraphs explaining exactly how pressurization works in an aircraft, which I omit here for brevity.) Continuing:
Now as I’ve said, this air conditioning and pressurisation is automatic, but it can be manually controlled for various scenarios like automatic system failure, fire, ditching and so on. The pressure regulators can be manually operated, allowing the pilots to open and close the outflow valves to set the cabin altitude to the desired level, or open them completely and switching off the Packs to stop all pressurised air from entering the cabin. With the outflow valves open the cabin will depressurise very quickly and soon reaches the ambient outside pressure, which if it was 38,000 would only give a person about a minute at best before unconsciousness sets in and then death. Anyway, the other thing is as the pressure drops dramatically, so does the temperature (-40+ eventually) so this is another incredibly uncomfortable situation unless you are prepared for it.
We next discussed the necessity of terminating all passenger phone calls once the Towers were struck. If this didn’t happen, the official narrative would never hold up. Call termination had more than one requirement. First, the hijackers would have to know with certainty when the Towers had been successfully hit.
They either had to be able to see the missiles hit the towers or someone was warning them. My guess is they were listening to someone on the ground (um, dancing Israelis perhaps?) who had a VHF transmitter. iCom is a company that sells hand held transceivers and there’s no difficulty in buying one of these from a local aviation supplies shop. The Boeing had 2-3 VHF radios and 1-2 HF radios installed so they could listen to 2 VHF frequencies at the same time. VHF is line of sight but the range is pretty good to an aeroplane. Once the signal is sent, the hijackers then kill the on board phones and set about doing the same to the passengers, as they’ve served their purpose now [making the phone calls that established the Muslim-hijacking narrative].
I asked Pilot A if these VHF signals would risk interception, although it occurred to me that this might not have mattered anyway, since they could have used coded phrases (like Pussy Galore’s “Flying Circus” pilots in Goldfinger saying “the baby is asleep.”)
For the interception of VHF calls from the ground station to the airborne station then, yes, these could be intercepted, but there were at that time about 760 channels to use, and many are not used or monitored as far as I know. Some that are used within the network are out of range; e.g. Chicago could use the same approach frequency as Boston, but due to limited range there would be no interference from the two. The hijackers would use code as you rightly suggest, a foreign language or combination which would sound like nonsense to a stray listener anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airband.
The next task for the hijackers would have been call termination—for both cell phones and airphones. From Flights 11 and 175, no cell phone calls were made, only airphone calls. But even if someone tried to use a cell phone, it wouldn’t have mattered, because New York City’s cell phones went out of service during the attacks, and once over the Atlantic, or sufficiently elevated, the planes would have been out of range of any cell phone towers. As to the airphones, Pilot A told me that “The problem is that airphones are not standard aircraft equipment like engines and wings, but are an optional extra and falls under the category of ‘Customer Oriented Change’ (COC).” As he is an Airbus pilot, he wasn’t sure about their configuration in Boeings, but later noted:
I’ve just spoken to a colleague of mine who flew the B747 classic then 400 series and they had airphones fitted which ran through the SATCOM [Satellite Communications] system. He said you could disconnect the entire SATCOM system by pulling the circuit breakers in the cockpit, so this is pretty good confirmation that the whole satellite communication system could be disabled quite easily. . . . Another colleague of mine says you can disable the airphones and/or the SATCOM through the control panel which is a CDU (alpha-numeric keypad like the FMS) on the centre pedestal in the cockpit. . . . But the simplest and quickest method is just locate and pull the circuit breaker(s) – job done.
Mini-update, 8-31-17. The same day I published this post, I heard from a former U.S. airline pilot, who I guess I’d better call “Pilot B.” He sent me a PDF of the pages relevant to airphone termination in a 2006 Boeing manual for 757s/767s:
This confirms that the hijackers, from the cockpit, could have instantly terminated all passenger airphone calls (creating the illusion that the calls had stopped due to the “crashes”).
Next: the final destination of the planes. In “9/11 Simplified,” I had proposed either (1) a water-landing rendezvous with an Israeli ship in the calm Sargasso Sea, from which no debris ever escapes (the hijackers breaking out of the cockpit wearing their airline-provided life jackets, the planes then sinking with the dead passengers entombed inside); or (2) (Mary Ellen Moore’s brainstorm) refueling in the Azores at the CIA-utilized Lajes Air Base. (From the U.S. East coast, the distance to the Azores is the same as the distance to Los Angeles, which would explain why the hijackers insisted on only utilizing well-fueled flights bound for California.) From the Azores they would have traveled across sub-Saharan Africa at night, across to Saudi Arabia, and up to Israel, the absolute safest place to dispose of the planes and passenger bodies. (It is necessary to read the post for these details to have credibility).
Pilot A shared his thoughts on water landings, which I was already beginning to abandon, since it is impractical to practice water landings with jets—there is no way to get them airborne again.
It is a bit of a stretch for me to believe they would attempt a ditching as it’s a highly risky manoeuvre unless the sea is flat and calm, or a river in Sully’s case [the 2009 Hudson River landing of US Airways Flight 1549] and the preferred outcome is not guaranteed. The B757 being a narrow body, tougher and narrower engines would be better suited than the B767 (wide-body) for attempting this. The engine intake cross-section is a lot narrower on the B757, so less drag on impact. As you said, this whole 9-11 theatre had to be a flawless plan to pull it off successfully. So in the ditching part, any structural damage and breakup of the fuselage would leak evidence all over the ocean surface and again the official narrative would die instantly. Our A300 manual recommends max flap and obviously undercarriage up (along with a whole list of other actions) to achieve the lowest speed at impact. A flapless landing is a harrowing experience as the landing speeds can be 40-50 knots higher than normal. Another thing is that the ditching manoeuvre can only be practised in a simulator with the outcome being theoretical, as damage feedback is generally limited. As far as I’m aware there is a shortage of information on completely successful water landings where the fuselage is intact. The Hudson River event hadn’t happened in 2001, and up to then most ditchings resulted in a controlled crash causing hull damage of varying degrees.
Another thing is the uncontrollable variable of being seen ditching several aircraft by shipping vessels in the area. I don’t think they would risk this scenario, as you can’t control who sees you. I know some of the remote ocean flights we make are loaded with fishing ships, container ships, sailing vessels, etc. So I agree that the best option is to blend these aeroplanes into ordinary flight paths and take them well away from the scene of the crime to be disposed of later.
Pilot A very much liked our idea of refueling in the Azores (which, by the way, is where Bush and Blair met to announce the Iraq War). My post had proposed that the 9/11 planes could have blended in with all the flights that were being rerouted back to Europe that day (no flights to America were permitted after the morning attacks). Requesting to land in to the Azores for a refueling would not have aroused suspicion, and Lajes Air Base is officially a diversion airport for jetliners in distress.
Mary Ellen has made some solid points which I agree with. Yes, the B757s & B767s were heavily loaded with fuel and could easily make it to the Azores. Like you said, the fact that they chose aeroplanes with heavy fuel loads is an interesting consistency. If the plan was to ditch in the Sargasso Sea, then you wouldn’t want all the extra fuel and weight as it causes the approach speed to be higher and puts more stress on the fuselage during impact. The fact that the official narrative said that the hijackers wanted more fuel to help burn the buildings appears to be a classic misdirection strategy. We know who controls the media.
These planes could have blended in, giving the excuse that they had been re-routed due to the World Trade Centre atrocities. Flight re-routing can be done easily in flight by the pilots, or by someone contacting the ATC [Air Traffic Control] unit that manages that airspace etc. On the day this all happened, everyone I know was glued to the TV watching the subversive hypnotic technique of repeating the imagery of aeroplanes slamming into the buildings. As far as people were concerned. the planes were destroyed. Interestingly, the media never published the aircraft registrations e.g. N334AA and this was only released some time later. American registrations are difficult to memorise because unlike other countries (UK:G-HART) there are several numbers sometimes sandwiched between letters, so it’s not immediately obvious to assign an acronym or mnemonic to help you remember it. However there is the likelihood of being photographed by a plane spotter, so the better option would be where spotters are not allowed.
[I will omit the text here, but Pilot A then discussed the unlikelihood of the hijackers refueling at the one of the Azores’ commercial airports, which would have required using an AA or United account, a credit card, or a huge amount of cash to pay for the fuel.]
That leaves a military/CIA/Israeli friendly base with minimum personnel. They’d have to make sure the dead passengers weren’t visible to anyone not in the know. As they didn’t have that many passengers, it would be easy to move them to the back [note: per the calls from 11, 77, and 175, all passengers had already been forced to the back] out of the way and close the curtains in the compartments, pull the blinds down, etc. Nonessential personnel would probably be glued to the TV screens as well, so not paying any attention to an abnormal refueling event. When we refuel there is only one man who does it, and if we make an unscheduled diversion to somewhere that has no A300 trained personnel, then I oversee the refueling by setting up the refuel panel for proper distribution. The hijackers could do the same so no one in fact need board the aircraft. The article in your blog about the CIA rendition flights passing through Lajes is interesting; so it was a clandestine-friendly base with no journalists or spotters, etc. I think you and Mary Ellen are right and Lajes is the most likely candidate for this op. I don’t know of any other base in that area.
I asked Pilot A what sort of difficulties the hijackers might have encountered by landing in the Azores while pretending to be other flights. Wouldn’t they have needed to state their points of origin and destination?
Ok, if the aircraft were coming into an airport and they were on a flight plan in the ATC system, then the pilots just announce their presence prior to entering the controlled airspace of that airport. Usually starts at the FIR (Flight Information Region) boundary. It would include call-sign (“American 66”), position, level, squawk and maybe ETA to a waypoint depending upon the airspace type. They wouldn’t have to give their point of origin or destination, because that is already in the system and ATC are not going to bother checking this, if it’s all been done through the correct channels.
I think this [the refueling operation] is easily done as I knew nothing about Lajes being used for super secret-squirrel rendition flights. This airport had probably been used for all sorts of clandestine ops, by all sorts of different groups for many years prior to 9-11. If this all had the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu, CIA seal of approval, then 3 passenger airliners coming in for fuel on that chaotic day wouldn’t have looked strange and could easily be arranged with only minimum personnel on the ground there. Probably even rendezvoused with a CIA jet going back to NY to take passengers’ personal belongings and scatter them around the twin towers debris! [I believe this probably occurred slightly later, after the planes made it into Israeli hangars, and the corpses were stripped.] Passenger airliners do fly into military airports, although not that common, it does happen from time to time. So if Lajes is listed as an ETOPS diversion airfield, then there would be absolutely nothing unusual at all about these planes going there. American and United planes are everywhere in the world, there’s thousands of them and they all look the same too. Admittedly the news was plastering their names over the TV, but I don’t think that would have been a problem. It’s bound to be a secure enough airfield to prevent a curious stray from wandering over for a chat while the re-fueling is in progress.
They could have used any number of bogus cover stories for a curious person or landing log entry e.g., B767 chartered by govt./military to fly deported people to another country. Where’s Ian Fleming when you need a cover story for an op? Deporting people might help convince any half-witted curious person why the aircraft blinds are down. Or the aircraft is on a temporary cargo charter for a special UN mission to Africa. I did one of those once. Strange lot those UN creeps!!
We see American registered aeroplanes all over the place with nonexistent or strange markings on them in some odd places, and no one has any idea what they’re up to, or can find out. In the UK they have what is called purple airspace which is activated when the Royal family fly, but some of that airspace (which is flexible) sometimes goes over military airports and you can bet that the special spooks like MI6 or SAS use it to sneak in and out for some of their ops. They wouldn’t even have to ask Prince Phil’s permission because they know it’s an automatic yes, no matter how evil the plan is! When purple airspace is active, you can’t go in it or you get a visit from a military jet and an escort to the nearest base for a word! Probably get a cup of Tea before the beating though!
I think the aeroplanes were refuelled on the US Govt’s dollar, no questions asked. The order would have come from someone at the top of the US Govt., not necessarily Cheney himself but one of his underlings who probably wasn’t in the know anyway. The compartmentalisation for this part of the getaway plan is easy for me to understand how it works.
To close, here are some comments Pilot A made about himself and the Truth community.
My mission I think, until God tells me otherwise, is to keep chiselling away at people with little bits and pieces of info so they can go look for themselves. I’m now getting First Officers coming to me with stuff I didn’t know or hadn’t considered on so many other topics too. Exciting times, James, this truth-hunting!
I am very grateful to Pilot A, who along with many other professionals from various walks of life, prove that challenging the official 9/11 narrative is not the stuff of “tin-foil kooks.”