9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes?

[Mick West]

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 . . .

Those are not really bugs though, those are fundamental problems with remote control. The lack of visual awareness, the lack of inertial feel (seat of the pants), and the addition of control response lag. These things require a level of technology that we don't even really have today.

 

[George B]

Those are not really bugs though, those are fundamental problems with remote control. The lack of visual awareness, the lack of inertial feel (seat of the pants), and the addition of control response lag. These things require a level of technology that we don't even really have today.

It is for a remote "human" pilot . . . but not necessarily for a target acquisition and guidance system . . .

 

[Mick West]

It is for a remote "human" pilot . . . but not necessarily for a target acquisition and guidance system . . .

That's a whole other set of problems. Why insist on making things so complicated, the known factors (the hijackers) are all that is needed to explain what happened.

 

[George B]

That's a whole other set of problems. Why insist on making things so complicated, the known factors (the hijackers) are all that is needed to explain what happened.

I have never denied that . . . I was only making the point that technology for automatic flight and target acquisition is a reality and has been available to the military for some years . . . the leap is to get the systems into the three aircraft involved in hitting their targets . . . that makes it highly unlikely . . .

 

[Mick West]

I have never denied that . . . I was only making the point that technology for automatic flight and target acquisition is a reality and has been available to the military for some years . . . the leap is to get the systems into the three aircraft involved in hitting their targets . . . that makes it highly unlikely . . .

And presumably it would also be in the fourth?

 

[TWCobra]

We have gone over this before George. The terminal flight paths of AA77 and UA175 both had errors indicative of human pilots failing to indentify the target or failing to identify track drift due to crosswind or poor target tracking.

An automatic guidance system would not make those errors.

 

[Alienentity]

judging from the number of suicide bombers around the world, in conflict zones or not, there is no problem getting people to give up their lives in return for a hit on some desired target.
When you consider the enormous value of the twin towers and pentagon vs an Afghani police station it is very easy to imagine that the 19 hijackers knew exactly what they were heading into and had trained for that mission: a suicide mission.

During WWII nearly 4000 Japanese 'Kamikaze' pilots gave up their lives and aircraft just for the opportunity to damage or sink allied ships. Something like 47 ships were sunk and another 300 damaged. Not only do we have a good historical record showing skilled pilots on suicide attacks, but they had to run a gauntlet of anti-aircraft fire to even hit their targets. Often they missed.

With the 9/11 attacks the suicide pilots only had to focus on a fixed target, with no AA fire and no evasive maneuvers. Every piece of evidence we have from that day tells us they carried out their suicide missions as planned, in spite of a real risk of failure.
Actually they didn't succeed 100% - only 75% made it to target. It was a brilliant strategy which unfortunately for the USA succeeded.

 

[Alienentity]

I have never denied that . . . I was only making the point that technology for automatic flight and target acquisition is a reality and has been available to the military for some years . . . the leap is to get the systems into the three aircraft involved in hitting their targets . . . that makes it highly unlikely . . .

If you compare with a drone aircraft, for example, the drone flies very slowly and does not need to perform terribly complex combat maneuvers. It relies on sophisticated missile systems to acquire and destroy targets, a completely different type of mission from the 9/11 attacks. Drones don't fly into their targets.

A cruise missile is a very small and agile aircraft which uses terrain mapping to find its target. A jet flying at 20,000 ft can't do that.

 

[George B]

If you compare with a drone aircraft, for example, the drone flies very slowly and does not need to perform terribly complex combat maneuvers. It relies on sophisticated missile systems to acquire and destroy targets, a completely different type of mission from the 9/11 attacks. Drones don't fly into their targets.

A cruise missile is a very small and agile aircraft which uses terrain mapping to find its target. A jet flying at 20,000 ft can't do that.

Or GPS or Laser marking . . .

 

[George B]

We have gone over this before George. The terminal flight paths of AA77 and UA175 both had errors indicative of human pilots failing to indentify the target or failing to identify track drift due to crosswind or poor target tracking.

An automatic guidance system would not make those errors.

I never said it was what happened . . . one could come up with all kinds of excuses of what might or might not have occurred . . . the human could still have been able to override the final corrections . . . being instructed to allow the system to work . . . unless something goes wrong then to intervene . . . the only logical use of such technology would be to assist the hijackers . . . something like an insurance policy . . .

 

[George B]

And presumably it would also be in the fourth?

Yes, if they took all the effort to tinker with the other three or maybe the other twenty . . . systems do fail . . . or they could have simply been able to override it at their discretion . . . as I said I have little faith it happened because of the need for access to all potential aircraft at multiple airfields . . . the only real option is the capability was organic to the aircraft and some evil genius was able to capitalize on this hidden vulnerability . . .

 

[Cairenn]

We have gone over this before George. The terminal flight paths of AA77 and UA175 both had errors indicative of human pilots failing to indentify the target or failing to identify track drift due to crosswind or poor target tracking.

An automatic guidance system would not make those errors.

Did you notice this? Explain the errors then.

 

[George B]

Did you notice this? Explain the errors then.

I think I did in the post above . . .

 

[Cairenn]

So, you now have remote controlled airplanes with a system that was overriden by the human pilots. Remote control systems that you can not show were available then. All so you can support a CT that claims that the pilots couldn't have hit their targets.

That dog don't hunt with me.

 

[George B]

So, you now have remote controlled airplanes with a system that was overriden by the human pilots. Remote control systems that you can not show were available then. All so you can support a CT that claims that the pilots couldn't have hit their targets.

That dog don't hunt with me.

OK . . . your dog is just fine . . there are pilots on record who have said they don't believe what happened . . . one either gives them some credence or ignores them . . . I don't have anyone proving that these few are crazy or incompetent (in fact they would seem to be risking more for their stand than others) . . . they seem to be small in number but I have no data to prove that either . . .I have the opinions and evidence presented here by pilots . . . it comes down to who is more credible . . . I can only express my thoughts in probability . . .

1) Both groups of pilots believe what they are saying . . . 90% certainty.

2) There is adequate evidence to prove the pilot Truthers are wrong . . . 70% certainty . . .

3) The Truthers are a much smaller group than all other pilots . . . 99% certainty

4) Most pilots believe the official story . . . 70% certainty

 

[Cairenn]

Where are your percentages coming from? I will agree with 3) I would think the percentage on 4) would be closer to over 98%. One reason, if they didn't they would get their rears out of the pilots seats.

I can't imagine any pilot continuing to fly if he/she thought that the 'government' or some other group could take the control of his plane from him and use it as a missle.

 

[Rico]

There are a lot of pilots in the world who believe in different things. Actually, it's similar in a lot of other professions. People think, behave, and believe differently. Personally, I'm more for sound reasoning using available evidence, though I understand people may approach things differently. What I am certain, however, is that on the topic of 9/11 and the aircraft involved, I'm pretty sure that there are very few pilots out there who have more than a hair of experience in flying an aircraft past max operating speeds as part of their overall experience in an airplane, and as a result, any theories on the matter that lack evidence is just theories. On top of that, and I'd hate to say it, but not everyone in the profession are all that... bright, no matter how many hours or how many airplanes they have on their belts.

To understand the matter of 9/11 and the associated theories attached too it, one must consider the alternatives and how well supported each alternative is.

First, did airplanes actually hit the WTC and Pentagon, yes or no?

If yes, was it human piloted, or machine piloted?

If machine piloted, by what means?

Where is the evidence of such means?

The theory of remote controlled planes ends at the evidence part. If there is a trace of evidence somewhere, then it may warrant a look, but the only thing going for such a theory that some pilots don't believe it. There is nothing tangible, unfortunately. Some of these pilots did some work in a simulator and said it can't be done. Then there are other pilots who did some work in a simulator and said it can. For all I know, simulators generally are more for pilot training that it is for flying aircraft at excessive speeds, so that's going to present some problems in developing theories.

Thing is though, for a theory to take traction, it's going to need something more than anecdotal opinion from the odd pilot. Not to demean the profession, but most pilots including myself are machine drivers, not scientists nor qualified investigators. So, results may vary. While I am no more qualified than some others to address these claims, I still think it's fair to say that the truth has more to do with what supports than simple opinion or unverified experiments.

There is a lot going on to support the official story. What was witnessed was aircraft from two different airlines and types that struck their mark 3/4 times. The technique to perform the act is arguably relatively simple though that is what is being debated. There are records of the piloting being relatively sloppy, and I am sure the airlines also maintain (or at least, did maintain) manifests on those on board each flight (not to mention maintenance records and likely personnel records of people who have had any close access to the aircraft involved). There are missing people as a result of the tragedy, as well as human remains. In order to show if the remote controlled theory has any merits, one is going to have to dig up evidence that more or less debunks he framework of what exists in the official story.

One thing to add here also is that, just yesterday, I had a read through another thread on this forum. I believe at least one of the pilots in the truth movement had a fairly questionable background as well. Just throwing that out there.

 

[George B]

Where are your percentages coming from? I will agree with 3) I would think the percentage on 4) would be closer to over 98%. One reason, if they didn't they would get their rears out of the pilots seats.

I can't imagine any pilot continuing to fly if he/she thought that the 'government' or some other group could take the control of his plane from him and use it as a missle.

The percentages are my guesses based on my own research . . . as to #4 . . . I tried to conduct a survey but got no where . . . and just threw in the towel on that one .. . . people who don't believe the official story work in all types of jobs including working for the government and serving in the military, etc . . . a job is a job . . . no matter how trustworthy any government is . . .

 

[George B]

One thing to add here also is that, just yesterday, I had a read through another thread on this forum. I believe at least one of the pilots in the truth movement had a fairly questionable background as well. Just throwing that out there.

Rico. . . which pilot are you referring and what is questionable about him??

 

[Will]

Icke is promoting the idea that the 9/11 planes would've been "impossible to hijack" (according to a pilot).
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/...ilot-used-on-911-planes-impossible-to-hijack/

 

[Hevach]

First, uninterruptible autopilot (in the sense that he's talking about, that is*) sounds like a design flaw, since the intended pilot has to interrupt it for certain things like landing. The autopilot doesn't launch or land the plane, it keeps it straight and level. One of our pilots correct me on this point if I'm wrong, but I don't even think it steers the plane, for that matter (hence why planes with unconscious or dead pilots level off into straight lines and go until they run out of fuel, like the one a few months ago that flew from the central US past Cuba).

More importantly, the same answer I made in the AirAsia thread about the equally silly claim of hackers controlling the plane: Physical access trumps security. The pilots had control of the cockpit, by all appearances unchallenged by that point with the crew either dead or back with the passengers on the wrong side of armed accomplices. At that moment, you have the same control of the plane that the pilots would, and can do anything they pilots would be able to do, provided you know how.


*-I didn't look up if it exists, but a system with that name doesn't automatically mean the sort of absurd thing he says it does.

It's kind of morbidly amusing to think about the implications of what he's claiming is normal, with no option to adjust spacing with other planes or to reroute around weather, no option to land early (be it on a runway or in the side of a building)... Every time you activate it, you potentially enter into a suicide pact with everyone else in the plane. If there's any kind of emergency, everyone is forced to watch it play out helplessly as the plane continues on its uninturruptible course.

Hopefully either Liam Neeson or Samuel L Jackson is on board, because otherwise, you're all doomed.

 

[Keith Beachy]

Icke is promoting the idea that the 9/11 planes would've been "impossible to hijack" (according to a pilot).
http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/...ilot-used-on-911-planes-impossible-to-hijack/

The pilot made it all up, all of it. He lies about Flight 77, 11, 175 and 93. I can't find a single thing he said to be valid, can you.

The autopilot can be hooked to the nav system and fly the entire route without the pilot, but the pilot can take over and must monitor the flight as if he was flying, it is his only job; the safety of the flight.

 

[Will]

This makes quite an interesting read: http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

"Air travel has always been rich with conspiracy theories, urban legends, and old wives’ tales. I’ve heard it all. Nothing, however, gets me sputtering more than the myths and exaggerations about cockpit automation—this pervasive idea that modern aircraft are flown by computer, with pilots on hand merely as a backup in case of trouble. The press and pundits repeat this garbage constantly, and millions of people actually believe it....
The autopilot is a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. I prefer the term autoflight system. It’s a collection of several different functions controlling speed, thrust, and both horizontal and vertical navigation—together or separately, and all of it requiring regular crew inputs to work properly. On the jet I fly, I can set up an automatic climb or descent any of about six different ways, depending what’s needed. The media will quote supposed experts saying things like “pilots fly manually for only about ninety seconds of every flight.” Not only is this untrue, but it also neglects to impart any meaningful understanding as to the differences between manual and automatic, as if the latter were as simple as pressing a button and folding your arms."

 

[Efftup]

Boeing Honeywell uninterruptible autopilot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot.

Developed by Honeywell. although some of the technology was being tried and tested for many years, it was AFTER the 9/11 hijackings that the system development was sped up to try and prevent this sort of thing happening again. Honewell didn't file a patent until 2003: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7475851.

Boeing version got a patent in 2006.

what it DOESN'T say in the wikipedia article is how exactly it works, and WHO and HOW control is passed irrevocably to the autopilot in the event of a hijack.

or even if this system is actually in use with any airline anywhere. Or ever has been.

 

[TWCobra]

Field McConnell has come up on this forum before. He is not credible. He has a Facebook page which rambles quite a bit.

He has a FB Post dated 1st September 2014 which claims he flew to Kuala Lumpur on the 8th Mar 2014 to discuss with Malaysian Airlines the uninterruptable Auto-pilot he believes was fitted to MH370.

8th Mar 2014 was the day the aircraft went missing. There are no posts in the weeks following that date that mention any visit to KL to discuss the flight. The first mention of it was almost 6 months later.

His blog on the same date reveals no trip to KL either. In fact he was asserting that the aircraft had been destroyed by a bomb in the Gulf of Thailand.



I can only speak for myself, and I know this forum deals with evidence rather than personalities, I won't be giving any credence to what Mr McConnell asserts on these matters

 

[Efftup]

Well in the video posted earlier, Field Mcconnell says the Malaysian authorities phoned him specifically to ask him what the hell happened to their plane. Not sure why he would be such an expert compared to say, someone from Boeing.

 

[jaydeehess]

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 . . .

Except much the same was tried again in this decade, this time with a 727, and again despite low speed the remote pilot was unable to land in the planned manner.
http://www.examiner.com/article/boe...shes-mexico-during-aviation-safety-experiment
One needs to ask, why is it harder to land a large aircraft properly than a small radio controlled model. After all radio controlled model airplanes have been in the hands of hobbyists for 40+ years.
JSO makes the point that his boat can travel an automated route unerringly. Ok, yes, and its moving at a few mph(sail craft) or a few tens of mph (powered craft) rather than several hundreds of mph.
Military drones can take off and land with remote guidance and those craft are at best the size of a small Cessna and again at slow speed and landing on a runway several times wider than the aircraft and responding much more sensitively to control surface changes.

IMHO The issue is the different response by a heavier craft and the requirement to make changes in tracking very quickly when moving at 400mph+, OR with experience, being able to hold a line and anticipate aircraft response.
The dfdr from flight 77 indicates that the controls were being sawed around in the fashion of an inexperienced pilot. We don't have dfdr from 11 & 175. What we see in 11 though is a straight in downwind path. Flight 175 demonstrates a pilot that was trying to go straight in but being pushed sideways by slight crosswind which, and this point was made above, the person at the controls seemed oblivious to the reason why the target was drifting in his sight, then having to push the aircraft hard to even hit his target. That is not a result of the response of a large aircraft, that is what happens when an inexperienced pilot is at the controls. We must assume that if inexperienced hijackers were not at the controls ( in order to solve some issues) then a remote pilot was used then we must also assume that this pilot was experienced and thus would immediately recognize a cross wind and probably would have anticipated it since he could have continuous weather updates for NYC.

 

[jaydeehess]

BTW, anyone know if the military releases any stats on the percentage of drones that they lose due to crashes? I would assume its a non-zero number.

If that is happening in 2015 how could the tech be much better in 2001?

 

[jaydeehess]

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 ?

1) Cockpit crew were dead.
2) Calls were made indicating on board hijackers not some mysterious loss of on board control.
3) Inexperienced human at the controls flying by visual reference missed seeing his target from height until it was too late to go straight in and had to make a three minute , 270degree, turn then line up and go straight in.
4) Inexperienced human at the controls failed to take into account drift caused by wind.

 

[jaydeehess]

Of course remote control presumes much, the existence of a vast and overly complicated plot rather than something very similar to what is known to have happened dozens of times in the past.

Planes get hijacked by nutbars. A few have deliberately wanted to crash (Paris), or inadvertently caused problems that resulted in a crash (ditching in ocean).
We also know that in the 60s several aircraft in several countries were hijacked the same day and flown to, iirc, the Libyan desert and blown up on the ground after the people on board were taken off.
We also know that radicals are not above sending suicide bombers into busses , crowded markets, hotels, or towards US Embassies abroad.

911 combined two previous scenarios, multiple hijacking, and suicide operations.

Remote control opens up begged questions ( some mentioned earlier)
- Were passengers and crew on board?
-If above is a "no" where are they?
- How and when were remote control devices installed? Who did this? Where was this non-standard equipment installed?
- Why did AA and UA maintenance, nor flight crew, notice non-standard equipment?
- Who was remotely controlling the planes?
- If automated routes what happened to Flt 93? Why did Flt 77 need to turn 270 degrees and descend? Why did the automation not detect cross wind drift on Flt 175? Why was Flt 11 the only truly successful automated flight?
- How many people had to be involved in the complicated plot as opposed to 19 hijackers and a few financial backers?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002918295_boeing08.html

Boeing has paid the largest fine ever levied on a company for violation of the Arms Export Control Act, settling a dispute with the State Department over the unlicensed foreign sales of commercial airplanes carrying a small gyrochip with military applications.

Content from External Source

Its a gyroscope on a chip, not a flight control module.
http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/414/QRS11.php

Description

The BEI GyroChipTM Model is a "MEMS " technology, solid-state "gyro on a chip." This DC input/high-level DC output device is fully self contained, extremely small and lightweight. No external support electronics are required. Since the inertial sensing element is comprised of just one micromachined piece of crystalline quartz (no moving parts), it has a virtually "unlimited" life. The Model is a mature product in high volume production. It is fully qualified and used on numerous advanced aircraft, missile, and space systems.

Content from External Source

From the datasheet PDF

The BEI GyroChip™ Model QRS11 utilizes a one piece, micromachined, vibrat- ing quartz tuning fork sensing element. Applying the Coriolis effect, a rotational motion about the sensor’s input axis produces a DC voltage output proportional to the rate of rotation. Use of piezoelectric quartz material simplifies the active element resulting in exceptional stability over temperature and product life.

Content from External Source

Additional surreptitiously installed equipment would be required to take the outputs from this chip and decide what to do with it before sending a signal to a surreptitiously installed set of servos

 

[Efftup]

So basically these chips were not surreptitiously installed in planes sent to China for any illicit or untoward purposes. They were one of many chips in a flight control box and it was not China that complained but the State Department, because this same chip was in the Maverick missile and therefore was classed as defence technology that was prohibited to be sold to China.

Let me repeat that. It was not CHINA who had a problem with these chips being in the planes, it was the US State Department.

 

[econ41]

Let's hope that the missile didn't use any 1/4" countersink stainless steel screws. Otherwise I will be in jail. With a lot of you in neighbouring cells.

 

[TWCobra]

or even if this system is actually in use with any airline anywhere. Or ever has been.

I very much doubt it. A system such as this would require a huge amount of acceptance/co-operation between various stakeholders and large dollops of training for all concerned. Nothing like this has been mooted.

After reading the patent I find it interesting that no mention of a control for the flaps is mentioned. An aircraft like a 747 would be landing at something around 70 knots above its usual landing speed if the flaps weren't extended. In a lot of cases that would put it through the airport boundary fence making loud expensive noises.

 

[jaydeehess]

I very much doubt it. A system such as this would require a huge amount of acceptance/co-operation between various stakeholders and large dollops of training for all concerned. Nothing like this has been mooted.

After reading the patent I find it interesting that no mention of a control for the flaps is mentioned. An aircraft like a 747 would be landing at something around 70 knots above its usual landing speed if the flaps weren't extended. In a lot of cases that would put it through the airport boundary fence making loud expensive noises.

Toronto best fill up that big gully at the end of one runway then.

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's hope that the missile didn't use any 1/4" countersink stainless steel screws. Otherwise I will be in jail. With a lot of you in neighbouring cells.

Its a miniaturization tech that the USA wants to keep semi-secret. China could easily duplicate it if they had them in their possession. That point is probably moot though by now.
I did a search to see where it could be purchased and how much they were. However, to get a quote you must fill out a request with name ph# etc. Not sure I want to do that. I don't really want to be trying to tell CSIS why I was inquiring.

 

[Hevach]

I very much doubt it. A system such as this would require a huge amount of acceptance/co-operation between various stakeholders and large dollops of training for all concerned. Nothing like this has been mooted.

After reading the patent I find it interesting that no mention of a control for the flaps is mentioned. An aircraft like a 747 would be landing at something around 70 knots above its usual landing speed if the flaps weren't extended. In a lot of cases that would put it through the airport boundary fence making loud expensive noises.

My concern, thinking as one of those various stakeholders, is the context such a system adds to a hijacking. Most hijacking attempts are still about ransom or defection, not crashing the plane into a building. In those cases, they've now taken a situation where most of the passengers could be saved and likely guaranteed that nobody is getting off the plane alive.

 

[Hitstirrer]

The thread title asks for evidence that isn't there - or it would have been shown many years ago. What can be shown however is some circumstantial and coincidental 'evidence', and that is the reason that the question is being discussed in the first place.

First of all, I find it disappointing that both pilots and laymen in here find it hard to believe in even the technical ability to remotely fly a large plane in 2001. With that mindset it is obviously hard to move forward to consider the use on 9/11 if it is thought that it's not possible in the first place.

Even cursory research reveals that remote control of a large Boeing had already been developed many years before 2001. Here is a wikipedia entry showing that a test in 1986 involved a remote takeoff and approach to impact. Such flights were most likely still pilot operated, just remotely, and not pre-programmed computer routes so that an FDR would still show minor jiggles from hand flying. As did the Pentagon FDR.

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

Now that the hurdle of the technical possibility has been overcome we can move on to consider the next stumbling block. That of actually taking over control from a sitting pilot/highjacker. As the physical link between a pilots hands and feet have been replaced by 'fly-by-wire' servo systems that possibility becomes much easier. All of the pilots input is now intercepted by a bank of computers and relevent information passed on to the control surfaces electronically. The location of the pilot is now not important. Obviously in normal flight he would quite like to be able to see out of the front window but 'technically' he could be sat at the rear and observing a TV screen for forward vision. Indeed, if there was a sufficienty fast and reliable radio link he could be sat in a ground office doing exactly the same job. Remote flying. Such a link was already available as demonstrated by the 1986 event.

The next item requiring attention is some kind of radio enabled switcheable modem that would allow all control to be moved from one set of controls to another set so that total control can be switched between any two pilots. Once control is taken from one pilot none of his controls would operate until the modem switched back to him. What if the second control centre was on the radio link as discussed before?

Such a device has been long discussed as an anti-highjack measure and suggested as a means of removing power from a highjacker and landing the plane where the authorities desired. Again, there is much evidence that Boeing has already installed such an interface without asking their clients and law suits have ensued ending in large fines.

We now have the ability to remotely fly a plane and also theoretically the means to take over total control from the plane itself and cause everyone on board, including crew and highjackers, to become passengers. From then it would be possible to interupt the oxygen supply of course, with obvious results. Crew, passengers and 'patsy highjackers' alike being helpless.

We now move to circumstancial and coincidental 'evidence'.

Circumstantial :-

It isn't widely known but in the year before 9/11 seven senior technicians from Raytheon were taken from their normal duties and seconded to a secretive task based in CA. They were instructed to not discuss any details even with family. ( Grieving relatives revealed this) These people were senior experts in cutting edge technology in the emerging field of unmanned drones and remote flying. (Raytheon went on to become world leaders in this technology and were granted contracts worth many millions if not billions post 9/11.)

Coincidences :-

All seven of those Raytheon experts were passengers on three of the 9/11 highjacked planes and died that day.

Raytheon had an office in WTC2 - 91st floor. Impact zone.

Raytheon also rented approx 9 sq ft of space in WTC1 - some kind of cabinet. Close to impact zone.



Discuss :- What if these Raytheon experts were used to develop and install equipment in the Boeings used in the 9/11 event? What if they had been told that their work was to develop anti-highjack systems which was commercially sensitive, and highly confidential. That it must not be discussed, to avoid a competitor spying operation beating them to this new lucrative market. What if they were honest men who would have been on the 'phone to the FBI in minutes if they had watched 'their' planes fly into the towers. What if they had to be prevented from doing that in an elegent manner. What if, on 9/11, they had been told to fly on those planes as observers of a development test of the system.What if the two Raytheon locations in the towers housed some kind of homing beacon to be used in conjunction with the onboard equipment.

All of the last part is pure conjecture and speculation of course. As 'evidence' it is non existant. But the information before that is relevent to the discussion, and that causes some people to muse over the various questions raised in the 'discuss' paragraph.

 

[Mick West]

All of the last part is pure conjecture and speculation of course. As 'evidence' it is non existant.

Do you think it's even likely though? How would this fit in with your theory of controlled demolition?

 

[BombDr]

All seven of those Raytheon experts were passengers on three of the 9/11 highjacked planes and died that day.

Take any plane, at random, flying between two large US cities, and I'll bet my boots there will be someone on the plane that works or worked for either:

1. The US government
2. The US military
3. A US tech company
4. A person that filed a patent sometime in their life
5. A financial institution

For every single plane crash, there is alway a CT regarding the position of one of the passengers, regardless of how vague the connection is.

If Im in a plane crash tomorrow, the CTs would be saying "Ooooh, he was ex Israeli military, and British Army explosives guy.... what are the chances of that?", when in fact I'm just a guy with more than one citizenship and bad luck.

If Mick dies tomorrow: "Ooooh, he ran a debunking website, obviously he found something too sensitive"

If TW's plane goes down: "Ooooh, he was a pilot trying to debunk plane conspiracies. Obviously shilling became too much for him and he was just about to blow the whistle..."

Raytheon also rented approx 9 sq ft of space in WTC1 - some kind of cabinet. Close to impact zone.

A lot of companies rented offices there, it was a building that rented office space. How is the proximity to the impact zone relevant if the entire building was conspired to fall by the evil 'them'?