9/11 White Elephant? Help me disprove...

[tek]

I'm still pretty new to this forum so I hope this wasn't covered elsewhere. I stumbled across a series of Youtube videos the other day purporting to show a "third plane" or "helicopter" in a variety of clips taken on September 11th(while searching for a BBC documentary on elephants, no less). Suffice it to say, my skeptic-sense was tingling pretty heavily(and let me stress I still remain firmly skeptical, considering the rather extraordinary claims); however, I admit I became fairly unnerved. Essentially in each of these clips they show some blurry white object circling around the towers. I can't post URLs yet but the videos are easy enough to find searching for "white elephant" on youtube or google video. There also is a page written by "Reynold Dixon" available here:
911review. org /brad. com/batcave/WTC-Attack_exercise_plane.html

The site is mildly interesting, some circumstantial evidence and then some speculation about (surprise!) government coverups. It's relatively easy to dismiss(if Diane Sawyer said it, it MUST be true!), but I have to admit the video clips, shot from so many different angles, I couldn't think of a simple explanation for. In several, it looks a lot like the motion of, say, a loose party balloon, while in some it does seem to clearly have the silhouette of a plane.

Note the youtube videos tend to have links to "Orb" videos(from the autogenerated "related links"), which are easily debunked as they are clearly just relabeled "Rods," the presence of which of which isn't surprising considering the amount of aerial debris. But what about this white object? Compression artifact? Lens trick? CGI? It seems like the easiest way to debunk it would be to show the different "angles" showing it in different locations at different times, but my knowledge of the perspectives is limited. Anyone seeing something I'm missing?

[Gravy]

Hi, tek. This was my reply to Dixon's paper in a now-defunct forum. Bottom line: the jets in question weren't near the WTC, and were filmed before the nationwide ground stop order was issued. As for helicopters, there were police and news helicopters at the scene.


I agree completely with the above post. In this paper http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JetDixon4.pdf, Mr. Dixon introduces a 10-second video clip shot from Brooklyn. The aircraft in that clip is not only not near Manhattan, it isn't near New York State. The plane's size, attitude and flight path are entirely consistent with a flight that has departed from Newark Airport. A brief chat with a New Yorker like myself who sees these planes every day might have saved Mr. Dixon a lot of confusion.

Mr. Dixon claims as a "fact" that this plane is "loitering." He additionally describes the plane's flight as a "fly-by" of the towers. The 10-second clip he uses to make this judgment shows a plane heading north above New Jersey. That is all.

Additionally, the idea of an airliner "loitering in close proximity to the towers for several minutes" is not a tenable one. Only a small plane would be able to describe a relatively tight circle with the towers at its center.

Mr. Dixon then introduces a single low-resolution photo of a plane traveling south or southeast. No provenance is given for the photo. We only know that it was taken after the north tower was hit and before it collapsed. Mr. Dixon claims, without providing evidence, that this plane appears to be "making another pass" directly above the south tower at about 2,200 feet in altitude. He says the plane is "recklessly close" to the smoke plume. If that were true we would be able to clearly see details of the plane, as we can of the north tower. Also, if the plane was close to the towers, it would not be a large airliner. The Twin Towers were 208 feet on each side, but he length of the plane's image is less than one-fifth of that. It seems clear from the aircraft's shape and lack of visible detail that the photo shows a large aircraft at a great distance from Manhattan. Mr. Dixon provides no evidence that this is the same plane as is in the video.

Dixon: At 9:03am, "UA175" approaches from the south at an improbably high speed and impacts the South Tower. CNN aired this "amateur video" of the event, which captures (without notice by Aaron Brown or Paula Zahn) what is evidently the same jet seen in the Camera Planet segment, making a similar northwest pass (but farther west, approximately over Battery Park) as the South Tower hit occurs." Why does Mr. Dixon surround the flight designation UA175 with quotation marks? Is he unsure that flight 175 hit the south tower? He doesn't say. Likewise, do his quotation marks mean that he questions the video's provenance? He gives us no reason to do so. He also gives no evidence that flight 175 is traveling at an "improbably high speed." And amazingly, he states that the speck we see for two seconds or less is "evidently the same jet" as in the earlier video clip! Mr. Dixon does not explain why he thinks the speck is a jet and not prop plane or a helicopter in the middle distance. Enlarging the picture 1600% reveals an object that could be a plane. That's the best I can say about it. If it is a large jet, it is, again, over New Jersey. I measured this object to be less than one-fifth the size of flight 175, although Mr. Dixon says it is nearby. If it is a helicopter, it is well to the north and west of the WTC, probably over the Hudson River or New Jersey. Finally, Battery Park is at the very southern tip of the island, not west of the WTC.

Dixon: "At 9:04am, Diane Sawyer of ABC News made remarks on-air about the "circling" jet she and her colleagues "all saw" prior to the second strike. She admits she "just assumed" it was the same one that struck the South Tower." Diane Sawyer does not say that she saw a plane circling, and she does not finish her "I just assumed" comment. Here is her comment in context, with ABC News correspondents Charlie Gibson and Don Dahler.

GIBSON: "In a second, that looks like a good-sized plane, came in and hit the World Trade Center from the other side. So this is obviously, or would seem to be, and again I'm dealing in speculation, but it would seem like there is a concerted attack against one of the towers of the World Trade Center under way."

SAWYER: "We had seen a plane coming in from the other direction earlier. I had noticed it. Had you, Charlie? I didn't know if that plane had then circled wide and came back from another direction, but we all watched it, and I just assumed... "

GIBSON: "Don, could you hear that? Could you hear that plane as it came in?"

DAHLER: "I did not hear that plane, but I had to step inside the window because the fire crews were so loud--the sirens--that I couldn't hear you." Dixon: Notable in this context are reports by FDNY personnel that they received a warning about a third aircraft. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, in an interview with Firehouse Magazine in April 2002, explained "We had a report from OEM that there was possibility of a third plane coming in." There were reports that a third plane might be coming in. It made sense to err on the side of safety. No one knew then that the terrorists were done with New York and were focussing on Washington, D.C.

Dixon: Even more intriguing, in the Naudets' documentary 9/11, a firefighter is filmed explaining what caused the collapse of the South Tower: "The FBI thinks it was a third plane." Understandable, in the massive confusion of the moment. Surely Mr. Dixon isn't suggesting that he thinks a third plane may have ACTUALLY hit one of the towers?

Dixon: "Much research has focused on the details and effects of various military exercises apparently underway on 9/11, especially "live-fly" NORAD drills designed to mimic multiple terrorist aircraft attacks on high-profile US targets." To my knowledge, none of this research has turned up a single shred of evidence that "live-fly" exercises involving simulated terrorist attacks happened on 9/11. Mr. Dixon, to whom is the existence of such drills "apparent?"

Dixon: despite the well documented confusion among NORAD personnel as to whether the attacks were "real world or exercise" That "well documented confusion among NORAD personnel" was immediately resolved. This from cooperativeresearch.org's 9/11 timeline:

Boston flight control says, “Hi. Boston [flight control], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed toward New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.”

Powell replies, “Is this real-world or exercise?” Boston answers, “No, this is not an exercise, not a test.” Powell gives the phone to Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, regional Mission Crew Chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

Deskins recalls, “I picked up the line and I identified myself to the Boston [flight] controller, and he said, we have a hijacked aircraft and I need to get you some sort of fighters out here to help us out.”

Deskins later says that initially she and “everybody” else at NEADS thinks the call is part of Vigilant Guardian. After the phone call, she has to clarify to everyone that it is not a drill.

NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, also says that when he hears of the hijacking at this time, “The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?”So, the "confusion" consisted of people understandably wondering if the hijacking report was part of the planned exercise, and immediately being told that it was real, not a drill. End of confusion.

Another take on this situation, from an ABC News special that aired on 9/11/02:

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS At a command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Major General Larry Arnold hears about a bogey, an unidentified aircraft.

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, AIR FORCE The first thing that went through my mind was, is this part of the exercise? Is this some kind of a screw-up?

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS Back in upstate New York, Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley is supervising radar operations.

MASTER SERGEANT MAUREEN DOOLEY, AIR NATIONAL GUARD We have a real hijack going on. So then, you know, boom, we're all in, in the urgency.

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins is the Mission Crew Chief for the exercise.

LT COLONEL DAWNE DESKINS, AIR NATIONAL GUARD And I picked up the line and I identified myself to the Boston Center controller, and he said, we have a hijacked aircraft and I need to get you some sort of fighters out here to help us out.

COLONEL ROBERT MARR, US AIR FORCE So what I did was call General Arnold, said boss, I need to scramble Otis.

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, AIR FORCE And I said go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/attack/abcnews091102_jenningsinterviews.html
Excerpt from an article in the Toronto Star about 9/11 activities at NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain headquarters:

An hour into his shift, something unscripted happens. NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.
Someone shouted to look at the monitor displaying CNN.

"At that point, we saw the World Trade Center, one of the towers, smoke coming out of it. And a minute later, we watched the live feed as the second aircraft swung around into the second tower," says Jellinek.

He had one question for the people on the line from NEADS: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?" he asked.

Yes, it was, came the reply.

And then, Jellinek says, "it got really, really busy." http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=92
Dixon: Was the "third jet" an actor in such an exercise? Was it meant to confuse defensive response? Was it monitoring (or controlling) the attacks? Was it a back-up in the event miss on the towers? Was it one of these? www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90)

Mr. Dixon has provided no evidence that any aircraft were unidentified or acting abnormally, aside from the two involved in the NYC attacks.

Dixon: If it is a civil aircraft, records of its take-off and landing must exist. A FOIA request to the FAA should be filed.Mr. Dixon, since you are the one claiming that a suspicious aircraft existed, you should be the one to file the FOIA request. Waiting for others to do so is illogical.

Dixon: If it is military, it is automatically suspect. Any proper investigation of 9/11 must account for this aircraft. Mr. Dixon does not explain why a military aircraft would be "automatically suspect." He has not provided any evidence of suspicious behavior by any of the aircraft described in his paper, or any reason to believe that it is unusual to capture an aircraft on film on a clear weekday prior to the 9/11 air traffic stoppage, when the cameras are pointed towards Newark Airport's flight path.

-Mark Roberts(btw, a "white elephant" is a possession that's burdensome. Dixon's paper uses the phrase "flying elephant,' which I guess has a different meaning.)

[JamesB]

There is not much to disprove, even the Journal of 911 Studies in which it was published, which possibly has the lowest academic standards in the Western World (and most of the east as well) has issued a retraction of this paper.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/AftertheCircus.pdf

[Brainster]

Some appear to be birds, others are probably planes far away from the WTC that appear close by because of foreshortening. JONES had a paper in their very first issue on the "Elephant Plane" (http://zroxi.com/giproxy/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.journalof911studies.com/); they then had to suffer the embarrassment of publishing a letter debunking the elephant plane (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/elephant.pdf). Of course, they had to admit it was phony because it had already been debunked (http://jod911.com/thirdjet.pdf) by the Journal of Debunking 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

[tek]

*had to snip because of URLs*

Ah, that last link was just the kind of analysis I was looking for. Thanks all.