911-strike.com     A wakeup call for non-violent political action

New Blog!  www.crookedshepherds.wordpress.com 

New pentagon overflight evidence: www.thepentacon.com 

The Five Sided Fantasy Island -- an analysis of the Pentagon explosion

Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11 Getting the Facts Straight"

Eyewitnesses and the Plane-Bomb Theory

Home
Up

 

 

The strange theory of the Bumble Planes

Carol Valentine and Snake Plissken propose a theory that drone planes (rather than airliners) struck the first WTC tower and the Pentagon. An empty remote-piloted plane struck the second WTC tower according to this theory, while the passengers from all four of the missing airline flights that day actually perished in a single airliner in Pennsylvania.  The theory may be found at Carol's web page, www.public-action.com.

Please note that I am unfortunately not in a position to prove (that is, to courtroom standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt") that this scenario isn't true. We are in a situation today where the US government claims they have the right to lie whenever it suits their purposes. Moreover, the major media outlets are all controlled by a few near-monopoly corporations, and their reporting has certainly been called into question many, many times.  Finally, in this age of Photoshop, no photographic or video evidence can be trusted completely unless it comes with a verifiable history and trustworthy eyewitness collaboration.

We do know that the official US government history of the events of September 11 is seriously flawed and that a coverup is underway. 

Beyond that, there is a powerful suction of facts into the memory hole.

However, there are also many clues that we can find, and truths that leak out somewhere.  Even the government must tell the truth much of the time, or ordinary people would start to be suspicious.

And if Carol and Snake happen to be government propagandists, we may discover the truth by looking at what they are trying to hide.

I will begin by showing that Valentine and Plissken have no substantial evidence to back this story up, and there are plenty of inconsistencies and problems. In this context, Occam's Razor is a valuable test. This is a principle in scientific theory, that says that the simplest explanation that fits the available facts, is likely to be the right one. If the simple theory that the airliners struck the WTC towers and the Pentagon might be correct, why choose to believe in such a tremendously more complex plot?

Quotes from Valentine and Plissken are indented and formatted in green color.

First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.

Is this really so unusual? Business was bad for the airlines even before 9/11. To analyze this properly, you would need to get figures for the average passenger load factor on these flights, then adjust for the expected variance, and do a statistical analysis to determine the probability that this did not happen by chance. Snake hasn't done his homework, so his argument is pure conjecture. My hunch, for what it's worth, is that I've been on quite a few nearly empty planes so I would be surprised if the statistics show this is significant.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

The cavernous streets of New York are a bewildering minefield for the senses. We simply didn't evolve to estimate distances and sizes correctly in this monumental environment. Also, none of us get much practice at estimating the size and shape of airplanes flying into buildings. It's easy to imagine that one witness could have been mistaken.

Evidence that the first WTC crash was an airliner, would include all of the photographs of the tower from many sources which showed a wide gash across the face of the tower, consistent with the wingspan of a big Boeing.  Furthermore, there was also an amateur videotape, released within hours of the event, which clearly showed an airliner striking the first tower.  This videotape would have needed to be quickly faked -- quite a difficult feat.

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

An explosion would accompany a crash, so this report would not be incorrect.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

The same remarks I made about the first WTC eyewitness, would apply here.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway.

Agree, media executives have no credibility. This eyewitness testimony not decisive either.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines ...

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

Wings might have folded back, or flattened against the Pentagon wall.

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none.

[Many more URL's of pictures are given]

When I look at these pictures, I can't see whether there is any wing wreckage or not -- there is too much smoke and water spray. I also can't see exactly how big is the hole in the pentagon. Be honest, I don't think you can see either.

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

Looks like it's made of aluminum to me. Consistent with a plane crash.

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon.

Apparently this discussion was largely private and never surfaced on the Web or on Usenet until the French site appeared. Why not?

Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear.

The photos were not apparently new. On the contrary, they were distributed widely about the Web in settings contemporaneous to the aftermath of 9/11. I have not verified their existence in print or in AP news releases, but my hunch is that this would be possible to check. Where is the proof that these photos originated recently?

Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

Huh?  Even if the photos are fake, how does this prove Rivero is a fake? Even sincere members of the opposition can be fooled from time to time. More likely, Rivero has reviewed all the available evidence including these photos, and decided that they are accurate.

Of course if there had really been no 757, "they" would certainly have done some Photoshop work to manufacture the necessary evidence. Probably without much delay. In fact it would be hard to explain why there are any photos that even seem questionable -- "they" should've been able to control access of photographers to the site.

But on the other hand, you can prove ANYTHING if you argue that all the critical photos are forgeries, all the eyewitnesses have been paid off and all the physical evidence has disappeared into the memory hole.

Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash As you point out in Operation 911 NO SUICIDE PILOTS

[http//www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

The airliners that struck the WTC towers and the Pentagon were flown with exquisite skill, executing maneuvers that you might see at an aerobatic exhibition or flight show. These feats could well have been impossible for typical general aviation pilots with low flight hours. But there is reason to believe that the "terrorist" pilots could have received the very best of training, courtesy of the US government.

Various records and testimony show that two of the alleged hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehri, took flight training at Rudi Dekkers' Huffman Aviation flight school in Venice, Florida. Investigator Daniel Hopsicker, following the funding trail, found that Huffman Aviation is closely linked to Brittania Aviation and Caribe Air. Brittania had no visible assets or qualifications other than its association with Caribe Air, but was awarded a massive regional service center contract. Caribe Air, in turn, has a long history of association with CIA drug-running operations out of Mena, Arkansas, and is also allegedly linked to fraudulent Enron-funded offshore investment partnerships.

Hopsicker also notes that according to reports from Newsweek, three alleged terrorist pilots trained at the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida, while Knight Ridder stated that suspects Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari, and Saeed Alghamdi had attended various other prestigious military exchange officer's training programs. These reports were never categorically denied by US government sources.

Carol Valentine points out that certain unnamed flight instructors told Washington Post reporters that the alleged hijackers had very poor flying skills. This is certainly self-serving testimony, considering other stories that the "suicide pilots" also had a peculiar lack of interest in landings.

Why weren't these suspicious characters reported to the proper authorities? According to their flight instructors, the "terrorists" were such terrible pilots, they probably couldn't hit the side of a mountain, much less a New York skyscraper. That's why they weren't more concerned.

But with the understanding that these flight instructers could well have been funded through CIA channels, in order to pay for the training of these pilots, it becomes clear that the "terrorists" may have had very solid flying skills indeed.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that there was actual aerobatics training for these pilots at the helm of Boeing airliners.  Furthermore, the difficulties of recruiting so many suicide pilots, willing to keep at their grim task for possibly years of training, represent a real challenge to Occam's Razor.  Perhaps a remote control system was in use instead.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

Perhaps the transponders were turned off so that the controllers could easily identify the airplanes. Or perhaps the pilots did not want controllers to have altitude information.

Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.

Or it was claimed they disappeared.  Entirely consistent with all  planes being airliners.

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

Entirely consistent with both planes being airliners.

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

The hypothetical events are described in detail, but there's one big problem.  The four airplanes would have to rendezvous at a single location, for transfer of the passengers.  This would presumably have been done at some secret military airport, with the passengers herded under gunpoint.  But was there enough time for all of this?  What if the planes were seen flying into or out of this secret location?

 

WHY DO IT THAT WAY?

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four.

Agreed it would not be easy, but the US government is powerful enough to pull it off if they truly needed to, don't you think?  The simplest explanation would be if the remote control system were built into the core of every Boeing flight control, as a matter of routine.

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.

But you weren't a member of the design team on that autopilot system, Snake.  How do you know what emergency capabilities might be built in?

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

It could have been the standard emergency remote control system built into every 757 and 767, requiring no special installation activities.  (Or, possibly, the skill of a top aerobatic pilot.)

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact.

Agreed, the Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) theory is impossible. I'm glad someone noticed.

OTHER DETAILS

* Pentagon Security Photos On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos

http//www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/index.html

The Washington Post says "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56670-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

We don't know the frame rate of this camera. We don't know if the Pentagon withheld the crucial image of the 757, which will be released later.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11

http//www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.gp.med.asf

[Note to reader There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

Not so fast, Snake.  I seem to remember a video image of that first plane...

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. 

Perhaps the wings were bending under various stresses, including the impact of the crash as well as aerodynamic forces.

The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important if the impact of the jet made

the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[http//public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg

and

http//public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

Perhaps the smoke and flame hid the gash. What is the alternative, that the gash was created by carefully placed explosives that were detonated moments after the crash, in the exact locations required? Give me a break..

The Hijackers I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.

Can't verify it so forget it.

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

Yes, it would work.  But how do we know this is what actually happened?

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[http//www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.

Perhaps the Arab names were intentionally removed before the lists were published.

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.

http//www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[http//www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service.

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)

http//www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp

or

http//www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

Absolutely agree, there is something fishy about the story of Flight 93.

Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived.

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even

himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

But the Objective has to be consistent with the soldier's ideology, or there will be a huge cognitive dissonance and the soldier may crack up. Crazed Arab or Israeli fundamentalists would both have good reasons (in their own minds) to drive airliners into skyscrapers, either in person or by remote control. Americans can be counted on to stand down, ignore the obvious and not ask too many questions -- but only a tiny percentage would actually murder other Americans in cold blood.  Afghans and Iraqis are, of course, a different matter.

The biggest problem with this Snake scenario is that there would be too much danger of leaving a "smoking gun" lying around where someone might find it. What if some drone plane parts were spirited away from the site?  What an outrageous level of risk.

There are risks for those who seriously defend such a theory as well.  What if conclusive proofs come forward against it?  Or even proofs that merely appear incontrovertible?  The antiwar activist is decisively discredited.

And, given the diversionary aspects of such an inflammatory yet poorly supported theory, its backers leave themselves open to charges of themselves being part of the "phony opposition".  

What are they trying to hide?  It's the remote control system, stupid!

Posted March 23, 2002; revised March 24, 2002 (hopefully less stupid today.)

By Jerry Russell

*NEW*  4/14/2002

A researcher sent me this note:

Boeing 767 wingspan - 156 feet - North and South Tower
   
A photo of North Tower WTC damage is at http://wtc.pkl.net/photos/wtc35.jpg . By my calculations I get just under 144 feet assuming that there is 39" between centers on the vertical columns, my crude measurements, assumptions, and trigonometry are correct. I counted 41 spans of damage. Rather than take a ruler measurement straight across, I measured up to the top of the damaged area on the right side from the baseline formed from the lowest seen indentation damage on the right. See if you agree.
 
If correct, then the plane had to be bigger than a 757, and if it was the officially stated 767 then there would be some folding back of the wings as expected to make the damage slightly smaller than the 767 wingspan.

Since photographic evidence of the North Tower WTC impact is available from a wide variety of sources, which could not all be faked, at least this part of the Valentine/Plissken theory should be viewed as conclusively dismissed.  Why no retraction from Valentine?