Large aircraft circling after WTC 1 hit

I found a report from ex-member of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth organisation Reynolds Dixon. He's an ex-member as since it was published he and his family have been threatened. His report talks about and shows sightings of a large twin jet aircraft in the Manhattan area after the 1st WTC tower was hit.

The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks

No mention of a large, commercial-class aircraft loitering in the restricted airspace of lower Manhattan during the strikes on the WTC towers will be found in the 9/11 Commission Report. It does not appear in any version of the Official Story. It is largely unknown even in critical studies of 9/11. Yet substantial evidence exists to support its presence coincident with the attacks, actually orbiting in close proximity to the towers for several minutes while the North Tower burned and the South Tower was struck. Photography, video footage and eyewitness accounts, including FDNY transcripts and mainstream media audio, confirm this fact.

I can't see what the big deal is about an aircraft that was probably circling in a holding patern waiting to land at JFK. I looked at the video and all I saw was what looked like a 737 passing by the tower. This would have been right after the first plane hit, when the first thoughts were that it might have been an accident. The video doesn't show any circling by this aircraft.

Very odd indeed... I am sure you will get the following answers from our local 'debunkers':

1. How do we know the pictures are authentic? WE NEED PROOF!
2. So many planes were landing... one was just off course.
3. That might be a bigger plane further away.
4. It might be a smaller plane closer up.
5. It might not be a plane.
6. It could be Jesus.
7. We can't tell you for National Security purposes.
8. You are not smart enough to understand or the gov't would tell you.


Did I cover them all guys?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I can't see what the big deal is about an aircraft that was probably circling in a holding patern waiting to land at JFK. I looked at the video and all I saw was what looked like a 737 passing by the tower. This would have been right after the first plane hit, when the first thoughts were that it might have been an accident. The video doesn't show any circling by this aircraft.

Why would a cameraman follow the plane around with the camera when the WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS BURNING?

Did you read the paper involved?

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

No avoidance warning from Air Traffic Control would be necessary, as no rational commercial pilot (no matter how curious) would risk his aircraft, crew or passengers in a "fly-by" of the burning North Tower. But in this anonymous Camera Planet segment we see a large, twin-jet aircraft (757/767-class) doing just that at approximately 8:58am

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Look at a map, with the number of airports in the area it would be odd if you didn't see an aircraft in the area. I've read the paper and there is nothing that shows that it is even the same aircraft in the pictures and video. As far as the author being threatened, what else is new? There are idiots all over the place. Last year a government employee posted his home phone number on one of the Katrina threads and then said he was threatened.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Look at a map, with the number of airports in the area it would be odd if you didn't see an aircraft in the area. I've read the paper and there is nothing that shows that it is even the same aircraft in the pictures and video. As far as the author being threatened, what else is new? There are idiots all over the place. Last year a government employee posted his home phone number on one of the Katrina threads and then said he was threatened.

I have looked at a map. It would be against everything a commercial pilot is taught to:

1. Not follow instructions in an emergency and violate a no fly zone.
2. Fly near anything dangerous/highly populated in an emergency.
3. "Accidentally" create a new holding pattern for JFK as you seem to clam.

As to the threats... Who knows, who cares. Could be real, could be made up.

Can someone establish from the video/picture the cardinal direction of the aircraft?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I have looked at a map. It would be against everything a commercial pilot is taught to:

1. Not follow instructions in an emergency and violate a no fly zone.
2. Fly near anything dangerous/highly populated in an emergency.
3. "Accidentally" create a new holding pattern for JFK as you seem to clam.

1. What instructions and what no fly zone. The no fly zone over NYC was adopted as a result of 9-11. At that time the rule was maintain 3000 ft. altitude over urban areas.

2. Who's to say that the plane wasn't clearing the area because of the emergency?

3. What were the holding patterns for NYC on 9-11-01? I have been looking for a Jeppson plate but can't find any from earlier than 2004. I do remember flying into Newark in 1992 and looking down at the WTC as we waited to land.

that video looks fake to me, the plane appears to lose speed too quickly, and doesnt zoom correctly with the camera.

terrorize.dk...





[edit on 6-7-2006 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
that video looks fake to me, the plane appears to lose speed too quickly, and doesnt zoom correctly with the camera.

terrorize.dk...

[edit on 6-7-2006 by Insolubrious]

I agree. It's almost as if the plane just totally disappears at the end.