Good post OP. I have never heard this before and consider myself somewhat of an expert on the subject. I can't answer your question either, but look forward to what others have to say.

Sure sounds fishy to me...

Interesting and I found this, it is no longer a military base, but the first privatized commercial airport.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t3466.html

I was intrigued about it being a privatized airport.

I've accepted that we'll never know the whole story of 9/11.

The only thing we know for sure is that nothing adds up.

Or all the assassinations, or the Nixon Presidency and Watergate, or the Reagan Presidency and hostages for the Presidency and Iran Contra and all the other scandals of those years or the Clinton Presidency with the very conservative record, or the 2000 election or the 2016 election.

Ya, that too.

Actually, there is so much factual and supported information now collected on the JFK assassination that a very detailed and very accurate story could be told, though that won't be allowed.

Or the upcoming one year anniversary of the Route 93 Harvest festival

We are suppose to accept that was a lone gunman with no connections.

We are going to have to give up our conspiracy investigations and accept our tedious ordinary lives.

Okay I pulled the high level IFR charts and their is an airway that would be on climb out of Logan that goes over Stewart. I am browsing the standard departure plates but I suspect that the Poughkeepsie VORTAC is on a Logan departure plate.

I would think it’s possible. The flights were scheduled to the west coast so that routing out of Logan over Stewart was possible.

Logan is far right on the chart and Stewart is on the left (both highlights).

Flying over established airfields is common. They tend to have navaids on site that are used to define jet ways. When you are above 10000 feet being over a military installation isn’t abnormal either. I would think that they would have been above 10k by that point and probably close to cruise. The hijackers took control (allegedly) at cruise level off when the pilot doors opened.

The aircraft out of Logan on the east runway departure track was in the direction of Stewart. The west departure was tracking up over NY state but veered due south on a track that went that way too. It may be coincidence but the route to NY city was more or less due south at both points the Logan planes diverted.

Now I will speculate on why imo. Based on what I see from the charts both planes turned south once they crossed the Hudson river. The Hudson is a straight visual track right to NYC. If you were using visual cues to help with navigation that's exactly how you would do it. They probably entered the tower GPS coordinates and flew by visual cues direct to the coordinates using the NAV computer a as course and distance calculation and the river to guide them in.

Yes the hijackers were likely trained to enter that localizer into their gps and the autopilot flew to it to get them closer to Ny. They likely didn’t hand fly the whole way

Stewart is actually a civilian airport now and has been since 2000.

Flight paths were all approximate. Because the black boxes weren't recovered, they could only go off of radar. The transponders were turned off mid-flight, just giving off a primary target to ATC, which was the only way they could monitor the position of the aircraft, which within itself caused a ton of confusion as the targets had to be tracked through a see of both IFR and VFR flights coming and going throughout the New York/New Jersey area.

When you see the flight paths depicted, it's not exact, much like how flightpath isn't exact. You'd have to pull up a replay on FAA's Falcon tool to get a true replica feed.

No, the transponder gives ATC altitute, airspeed, aircraft type and callsign. So if it's turned off, you can still see what looks like a blue block on a radar scope. That's the physical ping off of a radar but without the data being sent from the transponder.

Here's a photo of what aircraft look like in they're tagged up with a transponder vs if the transponder is turned off: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSsyEP6-3W3ct_dzZPolfzK1ED--xpFPE7arvjxbpTpHX9FFCb

So you can track the physical aircraft, unmarked without a callsign or aircraft information. However, it can also be incredibly easy to lose in the noise if it flies through a busy airspace.

The real answer would be that they were using the autopilots and were trained to enter the localizer for that airport into their gps to get them close to NYC. They didn’t hand fly the planes the entire time.

That's where they pulled the old switcheroo to drones.

I was listening to the radio (in NY) when they announced the first crash. I immediately turned on the TV but kept the radio on as well. When the second plane hit one of the DJs said something about remote controlled planes.

I think, after all that’s happened, that’s something we’d like to believe because the sheer horror of planes full of people slamming into buildings is a bit much to wrap your head around.

It’s just my opinion. I’m as skeptical as thousands of others are but the idea of drones begs too many other questions: What happened to the passengers? Where did the original flights go if drones took their place in the air? In all the years since (and let’s assume for a moment that the drone theory is true), why has not one person ever come forward to verify this? No passengers, no crew, no air traffic controller, etc.

In this scenario the odds would favor one of the dozens of passengers, or their family members, to at least be found, seen or contacted.

Yes, the whole thing doesn’t add up; I’m suggesting that the drone theory is just a psychological coping mechanism to explain the horrific alternative.

The real airliners were flown west, most likely to Cleveland. The planes were only 20-30 percent full all the passengers were loaded onto flight 93, either willingly or dead, and blown out of the sky. The 4th plane was purely for witness disposal.

But why bother to redirect the passengers at such a critical time? So many things could have gone wrong.

I'm not sure. They have had the ability to remotely control airliners through the transponder, since the 90s. But a thorough examination of the video evidence shows the planes that hit the towers were not airliners.

Also the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner. Tons of witnesses saw a plane, but on a different flight path. Also a plane was spotted by several witnesses right after the explosion. I believe a plane dropped a missile, mocked up to be a plane. The Pentagon lawn / hole and the white smoke trail on the "few frames" being the main evidence.

The Pentagon thing really makes no sense. A strategic hit to a very specific part of the building, footage confiscated, testimony from pilots about how nearly impossible that maneuver was, etc.

I still think that there were people in the planes that hit the trade towers – perhaps as a smokescreen to distract from the Pentagon?

Either way, there are too many things left unexplained – and yet, any attempt to explain certain details are waved away as nonsense.

I will maintain, however, that the drone theory is an attempt to psychologically process the overt horror of planes crashing into the towers. Even now, after all these years, it still feels inconceivable.

Have you seen In Plane Sight? May change your mind that the planes are airliners. No airline logos or colors. Just plane grey planes. A hump on the belly of the plane that airliners don't have. A small explosion a split second before each plane hits. He doesn't know what this is, but, to me, it seems like the male nozzle of an in-flight refueling rig hitting the tower right before the nose. Those rigs stick out in front of the plane slightly.

I have not seen that, but I will. I've seen photos of what appears to be, as you've said, a drone.

I'm referring to the logistics of having hundreds of people involved in being moved while drones take up the existing flight path. It just seems that, logistically and given the time frame, it would be difficult to coordinate all of this without error and/or a later response.

Again: my skepticism is in the seemingly glitch-free coordination of at least two airliners carrying passengers being diverted while drone craft come out of nowhere to hit the towers.

My point is: if this was, in fact, a deliberate act within the continental United States orchestrated by the government of said States, why go to the trouble to try and orchestrate such a complicated switch when it would be much less risky to condone the deaths of the passengers?

I dont know. I can only look at the most evidence I can. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me.

There were tons of drills and chaos at airports, ( and the bond market; see Project Hammer) to cover the 4 planes and military overseers on 9/11. A few elite secret teams to actually remove people and re plane them (maybe under guise of terror drill?) were all that had to keep it secret. Like Seal Team 6 type guys. Who would admit that later? That's a helluva guilt burden to bare. And maybe they were killed off later, who knows?

There's probably like 5 people or less who know ALL the answers to the whole thing, not bits and pieces, and they will not implicate themselves or underlings. But looking at the big picture, all the anomalies/lies and evidence we do have, official story is a straight lie, and they would not cover it up if they were not guilty.

Norad lying to the 911 commission then having parts of their testimony removed from the report makes me wonder what they were hiding

For years I was positive the military shot down flight 93 on dick Cheneys orders who had absolutely no command authority and officers were terrified they would lose their commission and go to jail

Now? I'm not so sure they weren't just protecting rumsfeld and his deputy from sheer incompetence in aiding and abetting

Look at Bush's connections to JFK. It seems Bush Sr was a CIA planted president, possibly heading the field team at the assassination in Dallas. Definitely was connected to anti-castro cubans through Zapata oil. The shit gets so deep. The two biggest conspiracies in US history connected through the Bush's and their cronies.

I read the house of Saud so I know what you are talking about. That being said we in the open minded alternate thinking community always make the golden mistake of thinking these shadow players possess an infallibility in the execution of their plans.

They don't, they screw up, a lot. That's when everything goes off the rails. My personal belief is Cheney and Rumsfeld were hand picked to aid a small group of ISI trained operatives in accomplishing their mission which was to put us at war. The isi installed the Taliban to control the drug trade in Afghanistan but lost control of them and needed it corrected.

AlsonCheney giving shoot down orders to the military without presidential authority also throws a wrench in the blender. It means Bush was left out of the loop. There are so many little contradictions that you wonder how they don't come off like the keystone cops.

Seriously, a passport survived a plane crash into a building and is miraculously recovered but the same crash melts the black boxes???

Ikr? All these little fuckups in both of these, and other conspiracies, and people just brush em off.

They must've never taught you about operation Northwoods in class. I wonder why...

The planes were obviously switched. The planes that hit the towers were grey unmarked planes with in flight refueling (with GE engines, not Pratt and Whitney). Some people have theorized the planes were switched above that air base, with the airliners landing or possibly redirected to Cleveland or elsewhere. The drones then flew on to the towers.

One day I hope we find out what hit the pentagon

Given the white smoke trail, that no planes give off, and lack of jet wash on the lawn, it was almost assuredly some type of missile, possibly mocked up like a plane. Also the size of the entry hole/ hole in the inner ring and an engine found at the site don't match an airliner and are more consistent with a cruise missile with wings strapped on. Possibly explosives set inside too, since that section was recently "renovated" and the column collapses were weird.

Most certainly was a tomahawk or cruise missile type of system

Also helpful to point out that this very process of"switching" planes was described in actual government documents regarding Operation Northwood.

Good point.

So where are you suggesting the people are that we’re on the planes?

On the plane shot down over pennalyvania.. notice all the flights were under 30% capacity.. can't have witnesses so they blew it out of the sky and made a movie about it..

But if they were going to kill them anyway why not just fly the other planes in the building instead of landing them at an AFB, then loading them onto a different plane only to shoot them down. Also there are so many phone calls from people on those planes. None of them mentioned switching planes.

The phone calls were faked. I don't know why they used drones. I do know the planes were aimed at very specific floors, as they took out two of the biggest bond traders in the WTC. I don't know that anyone knows the truth or the reasons why of the specifics.

You know except for that one call where we are told to "listen carefully... *it's a frame*

They flew to the Hudson River and used it as a guide to follow to NYC.

Planes navigate using radio beacons. The pilot tunes the navigation radios to the frequency of the beacon and the instruments will show if the plane is to the left or right of the beacon.

Planes also use GPS to navigate. But those flight computers work on waypoints. And the waypoints are the pre-existing radio beacons and the intersections of vectors from those beacons. Look at this pic of a flight computer from a 737. The route is DISUN -> BETOS -> EDDM.

I think it's likely the planes were using Stewart intl airport (afaik it hasn't been an air base since the 1970's) for the purpose of navigation. They navigated toward it and then took a vector away from it.

I would be interested to see a more accurate flightmap on a smaller scale. I think it would be interesting to see if the planes used any other navigational aids. Because if they were using navaids, and if the WTC complex lies on a vector between two navaids - then the flight could easily have been auto-piloted. And that would go a long way toward explaining the precision of the flights considering the pilots were supposed to be amateurs.

They would only need to know the 4 character ICAO airport code. For Stewart airport (which is apparently both military and public) that is KSWF. If they typed that into the flight computer they would be shown a route to follow and they would have the option of having the plane fly that route automatically.

It wouldn't align the plane with the runway. You know the way a compass can only point North? The instrument in the plane is similar except it only points toward the airport.

There is another system for aligning and landing a plane on a runway. It's called ILS. You might have heard an air traffic controller mention "an ILS approach". That is another radio system which requires the pilot to tune their nav radios. But this time the instruments are able to show if the plane is too high or low, as well as too much left or right. And the autopilot is able to adjust the planes descent and direction based on that information.

Part of that ILS system is "the outer marker" which is a radio beacon 10 miles out from the bottom of the runway. Usually planes route toward that, and then make a turn toward the runway on the runway heading. This is the ILS approach chart for KSFW runway 9. The outer marker is shown on the left as HUGUENOT with a radio frequency of 116.1 MHz. You can see the chart shows the pilot must fly a 92 degree heading from that marker to align with the runway.

The radio beacon which represents the runway itself is called the localizer. You can see it shown as 110.1 MHz on the right hand side of the chart. That's what shows if the plane is on the correct path to land on the runway. The pilot will turn to a heading of 92 degrees, then use the localizer to fine tune their glide path so they perfectly align with the runway both vertically and horizontally.

It's not hard to get a plane to go in a certain direction if you can enter waypoints into a flight computer. What's hard is turning at a constant rate and staying level. That's why I'm interested to know if the flights of these planes could be correlated to navigational aids. If they could be, then the autopilot could have managed everything. If they could not be, then the level of control shown by the amateur pilots is astounding. I know the WTC towers were a huge target to aim for, but airliners are not nimble things. They need a lot of room to turn.

I have a pilots license but I don't have a lot of experience. When you're flying a runway is an excellent visual marker. Especially in an urban area. It tells you where you are and what direction you're going. But I'm having difficulty believing the plane were flown visually and not on instruments / autopilot. At least by the people who we're told were piloting at the time.

I'm doubting the planes flew exactly along the runway headings because there's no real reason to do that unless you want to land on a runway or practice aborted landings. And the planes transponders were turned off which means we don't have exact location info for those planes. So I'm not sure we could ever accurately say they flew the runway heading. And it has to be exact. Even one degree off is far too much.

The sky is divided up into routes and lanes the same way as the ground is. So it could be the case that their route between two navigation points took them directly over the airport and on the runway heading. Not even deliberately on the runway heading but just as a consequence of how the lanes are laid out in the sky. But like you say we'd need to see a higher resolution image. We can't conclude that from the image we have atm.

If I was to really speculate, I would think along the lines of remote control of the aircraft being initiated above the airport. I don't even know how that would be possible but I imagine it would require proximity and expertise. But it's a technical problem to solve. It's not an impossibility. And we don't know what if anything was done to these planes. For all we know they could have had extra equipment on board to facilitate remote control.

Or maybe the proximity to that particular airport was for communication reasons? Some kind of short line-of-sight transmission which has a low chance of interception or raising suspicion. If you look at the path of UA175 after it crosses the airport it makes only 3 or 4 course corrections. If those maneuvers occurred at known navaids it would take less than 20 characters to input the route into the flight computer. Was that the info contained in this hypothetical transmission? It would make sense for the pilots to not know their route beforehand in case they were caught.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Why did both hijacked flights that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 pass directly over Stewart Air Base beforehand?

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] Why did both hijacked flights that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 pass directly over Stewart Air Base beforehand?

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

So not only did the govt fly two planes into towers, they also murdered all the passengers on the original planes individually? Pretty fucking far fetched all around

looks like they may have sent drones into the air as the real planes came above the base to seemlessly clone the airplane transmiter then land the real plane and have hte fake planes crash into the tower later

One day I hope we find out what hit the pentagon

Also helpful to point out that this very process of"switching" planes was described in actual government documents regarding Operation Northwood.

So where are you suggesting the people are that we’re on the planes?