Richard Andrew Grove Advocates Plane Swapping to Reporters
Richard Andrew Grove has now exposed himself as a plane swapping advocate . . . I'd seen it buried in his writings before, but now he's out in the open about it.
This is important because a number of sites promote him by linking to him (www.8thestate.com) and describing him as a "corporate whistleblower." What good is any corporate whistleblower who insists that real commercial jets didn't hit the WTC . . . with no evidence? The plane swapping theories at the WTC have no evidence, and the idea that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and passengers were deboarded to a NASA facility similarly is based only a single news story.
Both of these claims then have to rely on the idea that commercial jets never were in Penn or NYC, but that those planes were drones or something else. It's one thing to research it or write on forums about it, but another to advocate plane swapping to reporters in mainstream media.
No one in a leadership or public position should ever be talking to reporters about plane swapping.
http://www.total911.info/2007/02/911-whistleblower...
On Saturday's edition of "Truth Group Radio" on the Revere Radio Network, co-host Richard Andrew Grove, a 9/11 corporate whistleblower, spoke about his eyewitness experience in southern Manhattan on 9/11. About the alleged "American Flight 11" Boeing airliner crashing into the North Tower, Grove said, "I was sitting there in a convertible and I never heard it, and I never saw it."
In the revereradio piece he specifically says he spoke to a reporter from the Sunday Times in London and asks him, "Why do you think that's Flight 11? Did anyone identify the tail number on that plane? . . . "(42:00) Then he mentions later, "Flight 93 landed at Cleveland and was taken to a NASA facility . . .(43:00)
Plane Swapping Debunked
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
By Eric Salter
Version 2
29 September 2006
NEW: Update, 8 November 2006
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
Radar Data
With the combination of the civilian and military radar recordings from 9/11, either the transponder or primary radar returns from flights 11 and 175 were recorded for the entirety of those flights, according to documents recently released by the NTSB which show both the complete flight path and the altitude profiles of each flight. It doesn't appear that either plane was missed by primary radar for any significant length of time during the flights.
If the data presented is authentic, two things are clear: The flights started and ended where they were claimed by the official reports, and the altitude profiles show that neither plane was anywhere close to the ground except at takeoff and the termination of flight at Manhattan, which would rule out substitution scenarios involving landing at some other unknown airport along the flight path.
It is true that the civilian flight controllers lost track of flight 11, but it seems this happened for the following reason: civilian radar apparently did not have full primary radar return coverage, so flight 11 would have disappeared from their scopes (because the transponder was turned off) and would have been difficult to re-identify when it reappeared later without the transponder signals (which broadcast the identity of the flights). But this loss of identification does not support plane swapping. The entirety of the plane's flight path has been plotted with the recorded radar data, eliminating the possibility that the plane deviated from the course described in the official reports.** Whether a plane swap was achieved by two planes coming close together and switching flight paths is something that cannot be discerned from the data available and will always be nothing more than speculation unless someone can get access to the original radar data recordings and demonstrate through expert analysis that the data supports this possibility.**