Ir a versión española

Go to home page

Flight 175. Conclusions

Flight 175
Too Hot
Wrong Plane
Odd Bumps

Photos through various filters

Not Flight 175


What to do?

20 March
These photos caused quite a commotion in Spain when La Vanguardia published them back in June 2003. "Well, what is it?" people asked. "You haven't told the whole story" they said. "You publish a photo of a plane with what looks like a bomb strapped on underneath, and you haven't said 'Here's a plane with a bomb strapped on underneath.'"

So by July the Reader's Ombudsman was obliged to explain to La Vanguardia readers that investigative journalism is not free to speculate, that it can only report on facts. So, digital analysis of the photographic evidence demonstrates that something strange had been strapped on under the plane that hit the South Tower, but not what it was. (The Ombudsman pages are well worth the read, if only for the light they cast on the journalistic process. The second article, in particular, how the humble citizen can have an effect on this process, is a real eye-opener.)

Basically, this is your proverbial "Hot Potato" and a newspaper with a hundred-year-old tradition like La Vanguardia ain't gonna get burnt. Fortunately we're a website.

So what can we deduce from these pictures?

The plane that hit the South Tower was not the same one that left Logan airport that morning. It would not have been allowed to take off if it looked anything like what hit the Tower.

It is impossible to tell from the photographs what these odd objects contained, but it is possible to get an idea of how much they weighed.

767 200
Operating Empty (JT9D Engines) 80,920kg (178,400lb)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 136,078kg (300,000lb)
Max Payload 55,158kg (121,600lb)

767 300ER
Operating Empty (PW Engines) 90,535kg (199,600lb)
Maximum Takeoff Weight (PW Engines) 181,890kg (401,000lb)
Max Payload 91,355kg (201.400lb)

Source: 767 Reference Website
As we said earlier, not only was the plane switched, but it was switched for a different series of Boeing 767. The 767 Reference Website lists the specifications for the 767. What interests us is the Maximum Takeoff Payload, this is given by subtracting the Operating Empty figure from the Maximum Takeoff Weight. For the flight that left Logan, a 767-200, the lightest of the options, we get a Maximum Payload of 55,158kg, some 120,000 lbs. For the 767-300ER, the heaviest of the options, we get a Max Payload 91,355kg, some 200,000 lbs. A difference of 80,000 lbs. Obviously, the 200 was too small for the job.

So, applying the "Is it bigger than a Bread Box?" principle, we get that the odd objects attached to the fuselage weighed more than 120,000 lbs and less than 200,000 lbs.

Now, you don't strap on 120,000 pounds of goodies in one morning. It would have required several weeks of preparation (767s are not equipped with "hard points", the structures on military planes where fuel tanks and armaments may be attached). And Mohammad Atta, et al, were never near this bird. We know because within 24 hours of the attacks the FBI had tracked the hijackers every move and there's no mention of them hanging around abandoned airfields tinkering with old 767s.

No, this would have required a lot of organisation: an extra 767 that the authorities had lost track of; an abandoned airfield that no one was using; and a small fleet of trucks to carry those large tubes, pretty conspicuous rolling down the Interstate. All hidden away from prying eyes, for weeks. A lot of manpower and well beyond the derring-do of our loser Saudi playboy friends.

So, who flew the planes?

Well, certainly not someone who had only flown Cessnas a few hours. These babies were flown with military precision, as we've heard. I know some get sniffy when the possibility of flight by remote control is brought up, but I don't see anyone back at the abandoned airfield volunteering for these flights. We've seen that a great number of sources consider unmanned flight highly feasible. Something which could be easily implemented commercially in the near future to "make our skies safer".

Certainly, hooking up a guidance system to GPS (Global Positioning System) would be a simple affair. The result would be a plane slamming straight into the Towers like a guided missile, a bit like Flight 11 that morning. (Some even go as far as claiming that it was a guided missile, and it's true that the wings seem surprisingly short for a commercial airliner.)

Flight 175 with its sharp turn just before it hits the South Tower is another matter. This manoeuvre would have required visual contact, i.e. a TV camera relaying back to an off-board remote pilot. Fanciful? We've seen that the Aries Flying Lab has successfully taken off and landed unmanned. Now, you don't land on a commercial airfield without visual contact -maybe Global Hawk does, but it's a military vehicle. However, the Aries project is being developed for commercial use, so the technology exists (see Remote piloting: Solution or disaster-in-the-making? [USA Today, 10/02/2001]). Certainly Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, believes it exists.

As for the banking manoeuvre itself, perhaps it was necessary as a last-minute correction, after all it's a tricky job flying at 500 m.p.h. plus. But to me it all smells of detective fiction, in fact I'm surprised by the obvious questions that all the investigative commissions haven't asked (See: Unanswered questions - Demanding answers). It's clear that these people have never read an Agatha Christie in their lives. To me the outrageous banking manoeuvre was like something out of a Fu Man Chu novel. There's a clever hand behind this for sure, but the brain behind the clever hand is too vain to conceal itself, especially with the TV cameras rolling. That's how Fu Man Chu always gets caught out.

Unlike the La Vanguardia articles, of course, this is all speculation. I could be wrong. It would be easy to show that the planes that left Logan airport on the morning of September 11 were the same ones that crashed into the Towers by going back to the radar records of that day. Sure, the transponders were switched off, but they would still show up as an unidentified blip. Run an algorithm to show up only unidentified blips, and voilá, you'd only see four blips, wouldn't you? Unfortunately the FAA seems to have trouble in making these available.

Don't take my word for it. The mainstream media may be docile, but the Net is bursting with questions on 9/11 that would set J. B. Fletcher's head spinning. And until these questions are answered by a properly conducted investigation, many will suspect a cover up. Indeed, wouldn't it be in everbody's interests to get the whole story out in the open? Why hide documents under the guise of "National Security"? Just who is the enemy here? The US citizen? The whole thing looks mighty fishy. A friend just returned from Bhutan and the first question her Sherpa asked was, "Do you think the American Conspiracy will ever come out?" Come on, We the People ain't dumb!

So what's all this got to do with me, here in Timbuktu?

Benito Mussolini:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
The events of 9/11 were the perfect pretext for embarking on the much touted New World Order. Forget about Freedom from Hunger or Universal Peace. This is The New American Century we have before us. This is the emasculation of the nation state in favour of corporate power. This is pre-emptive war under the feeblest of pretexts. This is Might Makes Right. Don't take my word for it, go visit the Project for the New American Century website. Or, in a more palatable form, the report by Neil Mackay in the Sunday Herald of September 15, 2002. This is not some document written by an over-eager post-grad student, this was written by George Bush's future cabinet way back in September 2000: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff).

And this New World Order is already up and running. We were sold the Iraq war on the basis of WMD, terrorist links and the need to bring democracy to the Middle East. We were sold a false bill of goods. Never mind, the pretext was "irrelevant" in any case.

There is nothing "New" in this New World Order. This is going back to a feudal world of warlords with no rules. Which was fine for the 15th century when you could happily go about whacking people with a cudgel, but in the 21st century, with its "advances" in mechanised warfare, chemical weaponry, biological agents and badly stored nuclear waste, this would be Collective Suicide. (The latest news from Bagdad talks of radioactive levels 2,000 times greater than maximum allowed levels, no doubt due to the generalised use of depleted uranium.)

We've all been here before and the world decided not to go down this path. After World War I, the "Great War" or the "War to End All Wars", it was decided that mechanisation had made war such a threat to human existence that it had become necessary to establish a set of international tools for doing things. First the League of Nations -- defunct --, then the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and with them international treaties: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ABM Treaty, Test Ban Treaties, Kyoto, etc.

Admittedly, these first faltering steps in international law leave much to be desired. Instead of improving on them, though, George Bush is now dismantling a broad range of consensually accepted international precepts. This would take us back to the eve of the Great War of 1914-18, but with weapons that are a million times more deadly.

9/11 was merely Act 1, Scene 1 in a tale of Perpetual War.

These are dangerous times and they affect every man, woman and child on the planet.

Paper links

1984, George Orwell

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Der Zauberlehrling), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The Emperor's New Clothes, Hans Christian Andersen

Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

Our Man in Havana, Graham Greene

Absolute Friends, John le Carré

Hyper links

9/11 Review

The Web Fairy, various videos of the events of 9/11

The Incredible 9/11 Evidence we've All been Overlooking, Leonard Spencer

9/11 was a Hoax, John Kaminsky

Operation Pearl (long), A. K. Dewdney

Blix doubts on Iraq intelligence - BBC

Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President, Neil Mackay

This war is not yet over, Jonathan Freedland

The Petro-Dollar Wars, Senator Tim Ferguson

September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows

Our links page
Flight 175
Too Hot Override Wrong Plane Odd Bumps Conclusions Not Flight 175 Rebuttals Photos through various filters