9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes?

[Josh Heuer]

It appears that it was apparently a bit of luck (a lot?) and not as difficult as Tony believes it to be... the only of the three possibilities which make any sense in this world.

What leads you to believe a remote controlled craft is out of the realm of possibility?
I'm not suggesting such, but I am curious about the idea. Assuming a remote controlled craft was used, how would we know? What type of evidence would point towards that?
I ask because I distinctly remember reading a news article around 2000 about some remote controlled aircraft being used and experimented with.

 

[TWCobra]

What leads you to believe a remote controlled craft is out of the realm of possibility?
I'm not suggesting such, but I am curious about the idea. Assuming a remote controlled craft was used, how would we know? What type of evidence would point towards that?
I ask because I distinctly remember reading a news article around 2000 about some remote controlled aircraft being used and experimented with.

Well they were 767's. If they were remote controlled, then that was news to the passengers and crew who phoned from them. It is a silly argument with not a shred of evidence.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

What leads you to believe a remote controlled craft is out of the realm of possibility?
I'm not suggesting such, but I am curious about the idea. Assuming a remote controlled craft was used, how would we know? What type of evidence would point towards that?
I ask because I distinctly remember reading a news article around 2000 about some remote controlled aircraft being used and experimented with.

It's conceivable and now we know there are "pilotless drones" and the technology has completely arrived. My sense from seeing the flight paths... if they are to be taken as accurate... is that they were driven by an onboard pilot. But I have nothing to base that on. I do know that when I set my AP on the boat it can steer a straight course with no deviation from the rhumb line for 100 miles no problem. Routes with way points can be programmed into marine AP systems (and I assume aeronautical ones too). Those would plot out like stick figures I would imagine... unlike the courses picked up on radar.

It's also possible that the destination WP could be set at any time (near the destination) to do the final approach. How that is done by remote control is something I haven't a clue about.

I just don't know. I don't see how anyone could

 

[Bruno D.]

I think the main problem would be logical.

If the planes were remotely controlled, there are some options:
1) All passengers and crews do not exist
2) Passengers and part of the crew are real, but the pilots, co-pilots, etc never existed
3) "They" killed the pilots, co-pilots, previously and flew the plane remotely

There are additional issues:
- did the planes left the airports as reported? If they did, there would need to be lots of participants in all airports to cover the "pilotless" planes. It would make more sense if the 4 planes left the same airport, around the same time.
- if they didn't left those airports, all flight monitoring structure would need to be tampered with so that it looked like they departed from there.

Other than that, a big part of the discussion is if the plane supports those maneuvers at that speed, or even if it's possible to an experienced pilot to fly like that. Back in 2001 I doubt that a machine could maneuver better than a human pilot. And if the plane do not support that speed at sea level (what I also don't believe), it doesn't matter if it's remotely or locally controlled.

In summary, I don't think any of the 3 options above is possible and I don't think that the additional issues are solvable.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

http://memolition.com/2014/01/05/the-death-star-massacre-was-an-inside-job-17-pictures/

 

[Hitstirrer]

The issue of remote control possibility is not really in question. The technology has existed many years. Operation Northwoods from the Cuba crisis days discussed its use by US government forces in a false flag operation. There was a diplomatic crisis not long ago when China discovered inbuilt modems in Boeing jets sold to them that could remotely take over control of their planes mid flight. After 2001 its true, but who can tell how long that had been in development.

A puzzling series of co-incidents also revolve around Raytheon who, at the time, were worlds leaders in drone and remote control research.
Early in 2001 five senior Raytheon employees were seconded from their normal work and their close relatives say that they refused to discuss what their new duties were. They regularly flew to the West coast for days at a time in the months prior to 9/11.

On 9/11 all five of those seconded employees were passengers on three of the highjacked planes and died. On flight 11 were Peter Gray ( VP Ops electronics ), Ken Waldie ( Sen Qual control electronics), and David Kovalian ( Sen Mech eng electronics ). On flight 175 was Herbert Homes ( Exec seconded to DOD ). On flight 77 were Stanley Hall (Director of project management-Electronics warfare) and Charles Falkenberg ( GPS expert working on the Global Hawk project) Raytheon had offices on the 91st floor of WTC2.

The ability to take control away from on board pilots has been suggested many times as an anti-highjack measure. The China incident would seem to indicate that it moved along from more than a concept. Whether such devices were being developed by the seconded Raytheon employees is not known.

 

[xenon]

The Controlled Impact Demonstration (or colloquially the Crash In the Desert) was a joint project between NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aimed at acquiring data, as well as demonstrating and testing new technologies...

The tests involved the efforts of NASA Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, the FAA, and General Electric, and required more than 4 years of work before the test occurred. The aircraft -a Boeing 720- was remotely controlled for the tests, and numerous test runs were undertaken prior to performing the actual impact. The impact test flight occurred on December 1, 1984...

Content from External Source

Over a series of 14 flights...the aircraft made approximately 69 approaches, to about 150 feet (46 m) above the prepared crash site, under remote control.

During those same flights, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center also developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the Boeing 720 to fly as a drone aircraft. An initial attempt at the full-scale test was scrubbed in late 1983 due to problems with the uplink connection to the 720...

On the morning of December 1, 1984, the test aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility...

Content from External Source

Full story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration

This technology existed in 1984. Just imagine how much better it must have been in 2001, 17 years later.

 

[Bill]

A puzzling series of co-incidents also revolve around Raytheon who, at the time, were worlds leaders in drone and remote control research.
Early in 2001 five senior Raytheon employees were seconded from their normal work and their close relatives say that they refused to discuss what their new duties were. They regularly flew to the West coast for days at a time in the months prior to 9/11.

On 9/11 all five of those seconded employees were passengers on three of the highjacked planes and died. On flight 11 were Peter Gray ( VP Ops electronics ), Ken Waldie ( Sen Qual control electronics), and David Kovalian ( Sen Mech eng electronics ). On flight 175 was Herbert Homes ( Exec seconded to DOD ). On flight 77 were Stanley Hall (Director of project management-Electronics warfare) and Charles Falkenberg ( GPS expert working on the Global Hawk project) Raytheon had offices on the 91st floor of WTC2.

These are wonderful coincidences but the only thing they prove is that Raytheon Executives regularly travel for business. As for discussing work with families they were employed with a major military contractor. There's probably a lot they didn't share with their families. It only stands out this time because of their demise.

Some questions: How many other Raytheon employees executive and non-executive traveled to California in that time period? How many of them did not die in the 9/11 crashes. Their superiors in the company would have known they were sent to California. Even at top secret clearance levels you have some idea of what your manpower is up to. Why have none of them come forward. If Raytheon is involved, why destroy their New York offices and and their employees and after it happened why not come forward?

 

[Mick West]

The question is if there was any evidence that remote control was used. Obviously some remote control technology existed.

 

[xenon]

The question is if there was any evidence that remote control was used. Obviously some remote control technology existed.

"some...technology" indeed- 14 flights and 69 approaches- in 1984. That's more like extensive, isn't it?

Do you think the average American (or person) knows that in 1984 the capability existed to remote control a Boeing 4 jet aircraft and carry out 69 approaches during 14 separate flights and that NASA "had developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the Boeing 720 to fly as a drone aircraft"?

I could be wrong but I don't think this is common knowledge. Everyone I've told about this "Controlled Impact Demonstration" is - to put it mildly- surprised to learn this. And I'm aware of the title of the thread, but I thought it might be a good thing to post the proof of this capability. Now, when someone says something like "this technology has existed many years" others can refer to the controlled impact demonstration and know that it's precisely 30 years instead of "many".

 

[911247]

Boeing has form for fitting control modules into their passenger jets. They have been fined in the past for doing so, and have even been caught out fitting them to commercial jets without telling the customer. The QRS11 is probably the best known example of this. Although the chip, a tri-axial flight control module, would not in itself allow for the remote control of a passenger jet, it would form an integral part of a system that could. Additional components would be required to control servos, but this kind of technology is well established and widely available. I think we can all reasonably agree that this technology exists.

 

[Mick West]

"some...technology" indeed- 14 flights and 69 approaches- in 1984. That's more like extensive, isn't it?

Do you think the average American (or person) knows that in 1984 the capability existed to remote control a Boeing 4 jet aircraft and carry out 69 approaches during 14 separate flights and that NASA "had developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the Boeing 720 to fly as a drone aircraft"?

I could be wrong but I don't think this is common knowledge. Everyone I've told about this "Controlled Impact Demonstration" is - to put it mildly- surprised to learn this. And I'm aware of the title of the thread, but I thought it might be a good thing to post the proof of this capability. Now, when someone says something like "this technology has existed many years" others can refer to the controlled impact demonstration and know that it's precisely 30 years instead of "many".

I'm sure it's been around more than 30 years. It's just remote control. If we can fly a spaceship to the moon by remote control in 1959, then basic remote control planes seem pretty trivial by comparison.

 

[911247]

I'm sure it's been around more than 30 years. It's just remote control. If we can fly a spaceship to the moon by remote control in 1959, then basic remote control planes seem pretty trivial by comparison.

I agree, yes. The significant thing here is that Boeing have, in the past, surreptitiously installed this kind of equipment into passenger jets, as a part of Thales flight guidance systems. This. along with testimony from air traffic controllers stating that they thought that some of the hijacked aircraft were in fact military fast jets constitutes evidence that there is a possibility that these planes were indeed controlled by means other than those that we were told. This is supported by the fact that all of the hijacks made radical changes in course and/or direction whilst very close to military bases, a fact that was not investigated

 

[Mick West]

I agree, yes. The significant thing here is that Boeing have, in the past, surreptitiously installed this kind of equipment into passenger jets, as a part of Thales flight guidance systems. This. along with testimony from air traffic controllers stating that they thought that some of the hijacked aircraft were in fact military fast jets constitutes evidence that there is a possibility that these planes were indeed controlled by means other than those that we were told. This is supported by the fact that all of the hijacks made radical changes in course and/or direction whilst very close to military bases, a fact that was not investigated

"A possibility" is not evidence gerry. Is there any indication that actually indicates any plane was remote control? Did the hijackers just pretend to fly the plane while sat in the cockpit?

Occam's razor would seem to dissuade you from going down this path. It introduces a vast number of problems to be solved over "hijacker flies the plane". And an incredible additional amount of problems - things that might go wrong, and evidence that might be left behind (especially in the event of something going wrong).

 

[911247]

Whatever terrorist network was responsible for the 911 attacks would face the same problems. If any of them could shorten the odds of failure by employing a remote guidance system to steer the jets, they clearly would.
Could the alleged 19 hijackers have thought they were taking part in drills that would have seen the jets they were on landed at military bases to play out an end game? Possibly.
Did the technology exist that would have allowed for the flights control systems to be taken over while they were over these bases? Absolutely.
Could 19 amateurs assume skills that would be the envy of the most experienced of pilots and outwit NORAD and the some of the most advanced defense systems that exist, flying around heavily protected and monitored airspace unopposed for extended periods of times before hitting at least 3/4 of their intended targets? Not a chance.
As always, Occams razor cuts both ways.

 

[Mick West]

Whatever terrorist network was responsible for the 911 attacks would face the same problems. If any of them could shorten the odds of failure by employing a remote guidance system to steer the jets, they clearly would.
Could the alleged 19 hijackers have thought they were taking part in drills that would have seen the jets they were on landed at military bases to play out an end game? Possibly.
Did the technology exist that would have allowed for the flights control systems to be taken over while they were over these bases? Absolutely.
Could 19 amateurs assume skills that would be the envy of the most experienced of pilots and outwit NORAD and the some of the most advanced defense systems that exist, flying around heavily protected and monitored airspace unopposed for extended periods of times before hitting at least 3/4 of their intended targets? Not a chance.
As always, Occams razor cuts both ways.

"Not a chance" sounds like an argument from personal incredulity again.

So there's no actual evidence of remote control, you just don't think that the hijackers were capable, so you assume it must have been?

 

[Bruno D.]

Whatever terrorist network was responsible for the 911 attacks would face the same problems. If any of them could shorten the odds of failure by employing a remote guidance system to steer the jets, they clearly would.
Could the alleged 19 hijackers have thought they were taking part in drills that would have seen the jets they were on landed at military bases to play out an end game? Possibly.
Did the technology exist that would have allowed for the flights control systems to be taken over while they were over these bases? Absolutely.
Could 19 amateurs assume skills that would be the envy of the most experienced of pilots and outwit NORAD and the some of the most advanced defense systems that exist, flying around heavily protected and monitored airspace unopposed for extended periods of times before hitting at least 3/4 of their intended targets? Not a chance.
As always, Occams razor cuts both ways.

Asking directly to 911247:

The main problem would be logical.

If the planes were remotely controlled, there are some options:
1) All passengers and crews do not exist
2) Passengers and part of the crew are real, but the pilots, co-pilots, etc never existed
3) "They" killed the pilots and co-pilots previously and flew the plane remotely

There are additional issues:
- did the planes left the airports as reported? If they did, there would need to be lots of participants in all airports to cover the "pilotless" planes. It would make more sense if the 4 planes left the same airport, around the same time.
- if they didn't left those airports, all flight monitoring structure would need to be tampered with so that it looked like they departed from there.

Other than that, a big part of the discussion is if the plane supports those maneuvers at that speed, or even if it's possible to an experienced pilot to fly like that. If the plane do not support that speed at sea level (what I also don't believe), it doesn't matter if it's remotely or locally controlled.

Which option do you believe (or a variation of one of them) and how to solve the additional issues?

 

[Cairenn]

What gets me is that the scenarios the truthers come up with, get more and more elaborate, and require more and more folks to pull off.

 

[911247]

"Not a chance" sounds like an argument from personal incredulity again.

So there's no actual evidence of remote control, you just don't think that the hijackers were capable, so you assume it must have been?

That's a fair comment. The truth is that I don't know, and if you want me to prove that remote control was used on 911 to guide the planes, then I can't do that. At first glance it does sound way out there, but I am making the point that the official account is also. It is as hard for me to believe that these 19 guys did it, as it is for you to believe that the planes were remotely guided. Neither scenarios are impossible. We have evidence that Boeing can and have fitted equipment into their jets that facilitates remote guidance capabilities. I see no evidence that the 19 hijackers could do what would be a relatively easy task for this equipment to perform.

 

[Mick West]

That's a fair comment. The truth is that I don't know, and if you want me to prove that remote control was used on 911 to guide the planes, then I can't do that. At first glance it does sound way out there, but I am making the point that the official account is also. It is as hard for me to believe that these 19 guys did it, as it is for you to believe that the planes were remotely guided. Neither scenarios are impossible. We have evidence that Boeing can and have fitted equipment into their jets that facilitates remote guidance capabilities. I see no evidence that the 19 hijackers could do what would be a relatively easy task for this equipment to perform.

I, on the other hand, see the remote control option as ridiculously complicated and risky, and the hijacker pilots flying as very straightforward.

How are we to resolve this difference of opinion?

 

[George B]

The issue of remote control possibility is not really in question. The technology has existed many years. Operation Northwoods from the Cuba crisis days discussed its use by US government forces in a false flag operation. There was a diplomatic crisis not long ago when China discovered inbuilt modems in Boeing jets sold to them that could remotely take over control of their planes mid flight. After 2001 its true, but who can tell how long that had been in development.

A puzzling series of co-incidents also revolve around Raytheon who, at the time, were worlds leaders in drone and remote control research.
Early in 2001 five senior Raytheon employees were seconded from their normal work and their close relatives say that they refused to discuss what their new duties were. They regularly flew to the West coast for days at a time in the months prior to 9/11.

On 9/11 all five of those seconded employees were passengers on three of the highjacked planes and died. On flight 11 were Peter Gray ( VP Ops electronics ), Ken Waldie ( Sen Qual control electronics), and David Kovalian ( Sen Mech eng electronics ). On flight 175 was Herbert Homes ( Exec seconded to DOD ). On flight 77 were Stanley Hall (Director of project management-Electronics warfare) and Charles Falkenberg ( GPS expert working on the Global Hawk project) Raytheon had offices on the 91st floor of WTC2.

The ability to take control away from on board pilots has been suggested many times as an anti-highjack measure. The China incident would seem to indicate that it moved along from more than a concept. Whether such devices were being developed by the seconded Raytheon employees is not known.

Most Intriguing . . . seems coincidences do make one wonder . . . is there something to it or not . . .Raytheon has always been my choice as THE charter member of the Military Industrial Complex . . .the progeny of the Hughes Aircraft Company . . .

 

[Mick West]

Early in 2001 five senior Raytheon employees were seconded from their normal work and their close relatives say that they refused to discuss what their new duties were.

Citation needed.

 

[911247]

Asking directly to 911247:

The main problem would be logical.

If the planes were remotely controlled, there are some options:
1) All passengers and crews do not exist
2) Passengers and part of the crew are real, but the pilots, co-pilots, etc never existed
3) "They" killed the pilots and co-pilots previously and flew the plane remotely

There are additional issues:
- did the planes left the airports as reported? If they did, there would need to be lots of participants in all airports to cover the "pilotless" planes. It would make more sense if the 4 planes left the same airport, around the same time.
- if they didn't left those airports, all flight monitoring structure would need to be tampered with so that it looked like they departed from there.

Other than that, a big part of the discussion is if the plane supports those maneuvers at that speed, or even if it's possible to an experienced pilot to fly like that. If the plane do not support that speed at sea level (what I also don't believe), it doesn't matter if it's remotely or locally controlled.

Which option do you believe (or a variation of one of them) and how to solve the additional issues?

I actually like the way you are thinking through this logically. If I gave you a variation on one of your 3 options, that leaves me open to ridicule by some, as you can see by the non-constructive comment above.(not yours or Micks). However, I am used to that so will hypothesize anyhow, and in doing so, seek only to make the point that there are plausible possibilities that take into account the potential problems that you correctly outline above.
Hire 19 guys on the proviso that they will be employed to take part in a series of drills to better rehearse responses to passenger jet hijackings. Tell them that the drills will involve the mock hijacking of planes which will be landed at military bases in order to rehearse negotiating and storming techniques.
When the planes are over their base destinations, employ remote guidance technology to take the planes to their real intended targets. Disable the over-ride capabilities from the cockpits.

This is a far fetched hypothetical, as I am sure you will agree. There are many details that would need to be fixed - phone calls from the planes, a degree of co-operation from at least some of the passengers in the drills etc etc. What it does though, is take away a huge element of chance that the planes will indeed not reach their intended targets. And however remote the possibility of this being a realistic account of what did happen on 911 is. The principle behind the hypothesis is possible.

I now expect a deluge of scorn for being drawn into the realm of highly speculative hypothesis.

 

[911247]

I, on the other hand, see the remote control option as ridiculously complicated and risky, and the hijacker pilots flying as very straightforward.

How are we to resolve this difference of opinion?

We can't. But we should both recognize that either opinion is possible and valid.

 

[Mick West]

The principle behind the hypothesis is possible.

The principle behind an infinite number of hypothesis is possible. What is at issue is the probability.

We can't. But we should both recognize that either opinion is possible and valid.

Possible and valid in a semantic sense perhaps, but not, I think, equally likely.

 

[911247]

The principle behind an infinite number of hypothesis is possible. What is at issue is the probability.

true

Possible and valid in a semantic sense perhaps, but not, I think, equally likely.

and that is an opinion that you are entitled to hold. the fact remains that the kind of systems that exist and are at the fingertips of boeing and others would be far better at the job than the alleged hijackers.

 

[Alienentity]

With flight 93 the passengers were heard storming the cabin in an attempt to overrun the hijackers. Was this part of the 'script' too?
Are we to surmise from this that:

a) the hijackers deliberately crashed the jet rather than submit
b) the plane was remotely flown into the ground, killing everyone but hitting no target of value?

Since the other jets all hit important targets we are fairly safe in assuming the 4th was also heading somewhere. If indeed there had been remote control, the flight could have been forced to continue to its destination in spite of the efforts of heroic passengers, for example.

But that didn't happen, so this is a strong indication there was NO remote control of the aircraft.

There is further evidence that a human hijacker was at the controls of flight 11 in that it followed the Hudson River to NYC. If it had been controlled by some sophisticated remote apparatus according to conspiracy theories, then it would need to follow a programmed flight path -
Think about the alleged near-impossibility of hitting the towers claimed by conspiracy theorists, when considered from the perspective of a pilot IN the jet. Now imagine the difficulty of trying to do that remotely, in real time! Probably much more difficult.

But if a pre-programmed flight path were underway, they wouldn't require orientation by a geographical landmark like the river. But a human pilot/hijacker would probably do that.

Again, all these factors argue strongly for the hijacker pilot to be at the controls.

This is yet another stubborn conspiracy theory which can't be proven 100% false, of course, but still has no real supporting evidence - apart from the now ubiquitous argument from incredulity. That's before considering the fact that the hijackers were demonstrably on the aircraft and had flight training - very strong evidence which can't be plausibly denied.

The main question: Is it more likely that the hijackers piloted all the aircraft, or that an unseen team remotely piloted all the aircraft?
In my view the former is far more likely.

 

[Alienentity]

true




and that is an opinion that you are entitled to hold. the fact remains that the kind of systems that exist and are at the fingertips of boeing and others would be far better at the job than the alleged hijackers.

Wow, holy leap of faith Batman! the remote systems would do 'a far better job'? Based on what data?

We've been lectured time and again by conspiracists that the jets couldn't even perform these maneuvers because of the great speeds involved; now we're being told that a remote-control system did it? How many remote control systems have been shown to perform at the edge of the aircraft envelope?
Doing a landing at a low speed is, as we've been lectured, nothing like trying to hit a tower at 410 knots.

I guess remote control is the new magic device which can do anything conspiracists want it to.
Must be nice to just invent facts.

 

[George B]

Wow, holy leap of faith Batman! the remote systems would do 'a far better job'? Based on what data?

We've been lectured time and again by conspiracists that the jets couldn't even perform these maneuvers because of the great speeds involved; now we're being told that a remote-control system did it? How many remote control systems have been shown to perform at the edge of the aircraft envelope?
Doing a landing at a low speed is, as we've been lectured, nothing like trying to hit a tower at 410 knots.

I guess remote control is the new magic device which can do anything conspiracists want it to.
Must be nice to just invent facts.

I don't think a remote system was involved . . . however, cruise missile guidance systems do rather well . . . with the simple control surfaces and algorithms involved . . . not that it is comparable to a multi-engine commercial jet control system . . . what we are talking about is just added insurance that the hijackers would succeed . . .

 

[911247]

Wow, holy leap of faith Batman! the remote systems would do 'a far better job'? Based on what data?

We've been lectured time and again by conspiracists that the jets couldn't even perform these maneuvers because of the great speeds involved; now we're being told that a remote-control system did it? How many remote control systems have been shown to perform at the edge of the aircraft envelope?
Doing a landing at a low speed is, as we've been lectured, nothing like trying to hit a tower at 410 knots.

I guess remote control is the new magic device which can do anything conspiracists want it to.
Must be nice to just invent facts.

Didn't you read the bit where I said that what I was saying was far fetched and speculative? Are you here to move this debate on, or to stifle it?

 

[TWCobra]

Why didn't the pilots use their 3xVHF radios/ 2xHF radios/ACARS or aircraft passenger phone system to communicate the fact that they had lost control?

Why did none of the cabin crew using the phone system report the above?

Why did these systems overrun the Pentagon requiring a large turn to line up on the building?

Why did UA175 execute a turn at the last possible moment to correct for crosswind?

 

[911247]

I don't think a remote system was involved . . . however, cruise missile guidance systems do rather well . . . with the simple control surfaces and algorithms involved . . . not that it is comparable to a multi-engine commercial jet control systems . . .

The particular chip to which I was referring (QRS11) is used in both.

 

[Pete Tar]

....This is supported by the fact that all of the hijacks made radical changes in course and/or direction whilst very close to military bases, a fact that was not investigated

Define 'radical'. Can a graphic showing the flight courses and the bases locations be posted?

 

[911247]

Why didn't the pilots use their 3xVHF radios/ 2xHF radios/ACARS or aircraft passenger phone system to communicate the fact that they had lost control?

Why did none of the cabin crew using the phone system report the above?

Why did these systems overrun the Pentagon requiring a large turn to line up on the building?

Why did UA175 execute a turn at the last possible moment to correct for crosswind?

And in the absence of any 'conspiracy', why did these events occur ?

 

[George B]

Why didn't the pilots use their 3xVHF radios/ 2xHF radios/ACARS or aircraft passenger phone system to communicate the fact that they had lost control?

Why did none of the cabin crew using the phone system report the above?

I heard from an experienced flight crew member that they suspected the hijackers were in the cabins before takeoff . . .

 

[Mick West]

911247's account has been closed, as it is a duplicate of a banned user.

 

[Bruno D.]

I actually like the way you are thinking through this logically. If I gave you a variation on one of your 3 options, that leaves me open to ridicule by some, as you can see by the non-constructive comment above.(not yours or Micks). However, I am used to that so will hypothesize anyhow, and in doing so, seek only to make the point that there are plausible possibilities that take into account the potential problems that you correctly outline above.
Hire 19 guys on the proviso that they will be employed to take part in a series of drills to better rehearse responses to passenger jet hijackings. Tell them that the drills will involve the mock hijacking of planes which will be landed at military bases in order to rehearse negotiating and storming techniques.
When the planes are over their base destinations, employ remote guidance technology to take the planes to their real intended targets. Disable the over-ride capabilities from the cockpits.

This is a far fetched hypothetical, as I am sure you will agree. There are many details that would need to be fixed - phone calls from the planes, a degree of co-operation from at least some of the passengers in the drills etc etc. What it does though, is take away a huge element of chance that the planes will indeed not reach their intended targets. And however remote the possibility of this being a realistic account of what did happen on 911 is. The principle behind the hypothesis is possible.

I now expect a deluge of scorn for being drawn into the realm of highly speculative hypothesis.

Thanks for the fair and detailed answer. What I usually get when I try to argue like that is that I'm a blind sheep and other great stuff like that.

But I agree with Alienentity. In this case, what's the explanation to the 4th plane?
- Failure at the remote control system?
- Real terrorists only at this plane?
- Sorry, I can't think in anything else.

And again agreeing with Alienentity, regarding the navigation by land marks? A deceiving tactic only?

 

[Mick West]

What would be the backup plan for if the remote control failed?

 

[Mick West]

Do you think the average American (or person) knows that in 1984 the capability existed to remote control a Boeing 4 jet aircraft and carry out 69 approaches during 14 separate flights and that NASA "had developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the Boeing 720 to fly as a drone aircraft"?

It's interesting that the Controlled Impact Demonstration required 69 practice attempts to get it right, during all these 69 practices there was an actual pilot on board:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/CID/

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

Content from External Source

And even with all that practice they still messed it up - despite it being a very low speed test of an ordinary maneuver.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage
to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and
caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

It's interesting that the Controlled Impact Demonstration required 69 practice attempts to get it right, during all these 69 practices there was an actual pilot on board:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/CID/

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

Content from External Source

And even with all that practice they still messed it up - despite it being a very low speed test of an ordinary maneuver.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage
to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and
caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

Content from External Source

But that was in 1984 . . . some 30 years ago now and 17 years before 911 . . . seems enough time to get the bugs out of the system . . .