I would appreciate your comments on the article speculating that Flight 175 was a refitted Boeing 767 tanker (hence the pod on the side of the plane that won't go away, apparently a guidance device), a refitting program with which Dov Zakheim was connected (along with aircraft guidance systems), and why you think it is "hell, no" wrong.

Ron,

If it is the same pod I am thinking about, it is nothing but a part shadow and the normal landing gear nacelle. If you show me the particular one you are referring to, I'll know for sure and if you like, go into more detail why I formed that opinion.

Can aircraft like that be remote controlled? With the proper fitment, yes. The problem is flying it accurately, especially to hit the WTC. Remote control flying is surprisingly different from flying a normal aircraft; you tend to react differently (for lack of a better term). When UAVs first started to become popular in the late 1980s, they found that regular pilots were NOT best suited to fly these aircraft. RC flyers turned out to be far better at flying them. Flying a large remotely piloted aircraft is halfway between; a UAV pilot would find it a little different from normal Global Hawk / Predator flying, and an airline pilot would find it different from flying a normal heavy.

Could such a remotely piloted aircraft be flown into the WTC? With training, yes. They'd have to get used to flying such a large aircraft, and flying it accurately - but it could be done.

Is there any evidence that it was done? No.

There is only speculation. No-one has been able to prove that the aircraft that hit the WTC were not the aircraft they claimed to be. No mysterious bodies have turned up, no aircraft that were destroyed or parts thereof have appeared, no radar tracks of switching of flights have appeared, etc. At best it is speculation without a basis in reality.

It is pictured in the article I referenced. Here again is the link:

http://911review.org/brad.com/batcave/Dov_Zakheim_911.html

It does not look like shadow and normal landing gear to me. It looks like something attached to the aircraft. But I guess that refitted Boeing 767s can be in the eye of the beholder, especially if the beholder has reluctant eyeballs.

Ron, every time I go to that site it redirects me after about 5 or so seconds to another site. Sorry, it's a suspect site IMO. I did see the photo (I think) to which you refer. Is it this one?



If so, it's as I said - the normal nacelle where the main gear goes.





See here for more detailed information.

For non-reluctant eyeballs (or minds connected to them via the optic nerves) in the film The Ripple Effect [easily found on Internet] there are very good images of the pod under 'Flight 175'. Need some 'splaning....

However, this thread was to put the events of 911 into historical and political context. I suggest this all be moved to an approriate thread.

Thread created and posts moved.

Not the same.

Jack

Jack,

I'm sorry but I'm not clear on what you said: not the same image? Not the same flight? Could you make your disagreement a little clearer? Thanks.

Ron, request you give your response on this as well, thanks.

Evan,

The photo that Jack posted looks like the pod extends along the whole length of the fuselage. But of course the photo is far from clear, and some kind of odd reflection cannot be ruled out. I wanted your opinion on this issue, but I agree with those who say that arguing about whether or not there was a pod, plane substitution, etc. detracts from the 9/11 debate, which is basically about the fact that the whole story of 9/11 has not been told, as attested by the many unanswered questions, which the commission refused to ask.

It's my guess that the aircraft were remotely controlled, because the conspirators would not depend on Atta and his ragtag bunch to hit the targets. (And Dov Zakheim's background in aircraft control systems is another one of those dadgum coincidences.) You have stated that it would take a lot of training or practice to fly these planes remotely. Well, I would imagine they had all the time in the world to train and practice this exercise.

Ron,

It's quite true that in the correct circumstances they would have had the necessary time to train for such an event.

If we extend that, however, why is it not possible they could not have replaced a number of flights in case one failed? Why were there not multiple crashes (which might have been explained)?

You mentioned "the commision refused to ask"; just how many questions? Seriously, just how many are questions? If you think there are many, can you hypothesise why the numerous professional airline pilot groups are not asking questions? Why the professional aircraft engineering groups are not asking questions?

I'm not talking about aircraft questions, I'm talking about questions covering the whole gamut of events and coincidences that day. The family steering committee gave the commission a laundry list of questions that should have been answered, and the commission simply refused to ask them, such as, for example, why the Secretary of Defense and the the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were literally hiding in offices, incommunicado, until the attacks were over. What were they afraid of that prevented them from coming out and joining the curious with America under attack?

Ron,

I agree reference the pod distraction although we disagree on it's significance. I admit it would have been possible to have a 767 RPV, but I see no actual evidence of that. The "pod" is not required for the aircraft to become an RPV; all the necessary mods would be internal. Any large additional electronics could be mounted in the cabin area.

The USAF has been converting their superseded fighters to drones for some time. They normally use them for missile practice. Here is an image of one:



Can you see any pods or otherwise distinguishing it as a QF-4? The bulges on the spine are normal for the aircraft - not a drone mod. The aircraft looks exactly the same as a regular F-4. The two giveaways are:

- DayGlo orange on the wingtips and extremities; and

- No crew in the cockpits!

(Actually, I suspect there may be a small aerial somewhere underneath or possibly near the tail, replacing one of the regular UHF antennas. If you were very intimate with the particular version, you might notice)

So to my way of thinking, if you did substitute a drone aircraft for the real flight, you'd have to make sure that the drone was indistinguishable from a regular 767. The presence of a pod goes against this (different from the regular aircraft), and would not be required for a drone. A pod defeats the purpose of the drone.

Some have said it contained some type of missile. Why have a missile? Oh, to create that hole in the building.

But again - why? In case the aircraft missed? That's silly; if the aircraft missed hitting the building, then having a missile explode on the building would be HIGHLY suspicious.

To make a hole for the aircraft? Again, not backed up by facts. An aircraft hitting the building would contain FAR more energy than anything less than a bloody huge missile; far larger than could even be hoped to be concealed. It would be painfully obvious that it was an external store, and once again defeats the purpose of pretending to be a regular 767.

Plain and simple - it does not fit. The pod is a fantasy. It is explained by the light, shadow, aspect, film quality, etc. Trying to explain a pod on the aircraft, associated with some nefarious 9/11 plan, immediately defeats it's own existence!