If you look at the routes of the hijacked planes on the morning of 9/11, you see that they didn't fly directly to their intended targets.

Actually none of the four planes chose a short flight path— instead they were all piloted in long detours and loops to New York and Washington.

But why?

Wasn't it a great risk for the hijackers to be captured by fighter jets on their strange and time-consuming detours?

Why took there such an unnecessary risk?

The 9/11 Commission didn't even ask the question— although there seems to be a reasonable solution.

If you transfer the flight routes onto a map with the radar coverage of the northeastern United States, you see that three of the four flights directed their detours exactly to so-called radar gaps, meaning areas with extremely poor radar coverage

Only there, the transponders were switched off.

The transponder signal transmits the airliners identity, speed, and altitude to air traffic controllers.

Without that signal the controllers see at best only a nameless point on their screens.

[music starts]

Flight 11 switched off its transponder seven minutes after the hijacking at 8:21, apparently exactly when the plane was crossing the border of the local radar coverage.

Flight 77 switched off at 8:56— in this case even the Washington Post reported about a radar gap, because the planes signal was disappearing completely from the screens.

Flight 93 also fits into this pattern— the plane's transponder was shut off only 13 minutes after the hijacking at 9:41, not earlier or later, but precisely when the airliner crossed a small area with extremely poor radar coverage.

The obvious question needs to be addressed— how should Mohammad Atta and his associates have known the most intimate details of military and civilian radar coverage in the u.s., details widely unknown even to air traffic controllers in charge on 9/11?

And how should they have known by minute when their individual plane had reached such a radar gap?

Finally, why didn't the 9/11 Commission even mention this issue?

Perhaps, one could guess, because it could lead to some speculation about the possibility of a central control— for there's a further aspect hardly going along with official theory.

The precisely simultaneous events shortly before 9 a.m.

At 8:46 the 1st plane hit the World Trade Center.

Only seconds later at 8:47 the 2nd plane changed its transponder code and thereby its identity.

At 8:51 the 2nd plane turned.

At 8:50 for the 3rd plane turned, switching off its transponder at 8:56.

So all these major events took place within only 10 minutes, orchestrated allegedly by hijackers actually unable to communicate to each other while aboard the individual planes.

Then how did they do it?

For they also couldn't rely on a fixed arrangement— because all 3 flights mentioned, took off with unscheduled delays between 10 to 15 minutes.

By pure logic that leaves only two possible explanations for the strange simultaneousness: accident or a central external control of the planes and their transponders.

The reference to a possible remote control sounds like science fiction, but it's not.

As early as 1984 a remote-controlled Boeing was intentionally crashed for a test by the US military.

And in the 1990s the Pentagon was pushing hard to develop JPALS — the joint precision approach and landing system.

Private contractor on this military project was Raytheon, one of the world's largest defense companies.

In 2001 they were proudly reporting that they had safely remote-controlled a Boeing 727 in August of that year, meaning 1 month before 9/11.

If and what difficulties would appear in remote controlling a Boeing 757 or 767, the types that had been hijacked, has not been reported to this date.

That nobody could have imagined something like this before 9/11 is in doubt however.

In March 2001, half a year before the attacks, Fox broadcast of the first episode of a new TV series called the lone gunman, where commercial airliner is crashed into the World Trade Center by remote control.

The script writers named the conspirators as being part of the u.s. elite, by the way. Their aim: new wars, and a massive and permanent increase in defense spending.

So long for the TV movie from spring 2001 — watched by a huge audience.

And not only civilian script writers showed prophetic fantasy.

Also the military regularly exercised hijackings in plenty of different scenarios before 9/11.

For example in June 2001, the suicide hijacking of an inbound flight— as shown in a 2009 release document by the 9/11 Commission.

Not to forget all the war games on the morning of 9/11 itself— that strangely included a hijacking, and fake inserts on the radar screens of the air defense— precisely while the real attacks were underway.

The pure amount of these unexplained facts underlines the need for a new public investigation of the attacks.