Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Letest from Journal of 9/11 Studies - Remote controlled planes (22 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    Article by Aidan Monaghan published in the Journal of 911 Studies; also a reminder to PREPARE - Steven Jones

    The "big crunch" is happening -- and it will surely get worse before too long. (I also warned about a probable pandemic and quarantine in that post). That is why I again urge you to prepare -- knowing what YOU know, I'm confident you will wish to take steps to prepare for what lies ahead. Here's what you can do right away (will you?)

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/18047

    "Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems" - Aidan Monaghan

    Intro:

    Because information collected after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has raised questions about the alleged ability and motivation of the people accused of piloting four Boeing 757 and 767 planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon building and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, speculation has since lingered regarding the covert use of technology to precisely navigate the four airliners that day without onboard pilot control.

    Bleh.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    It's actually a pretty decent article that cites only mainstream sources, not a single hoax site or claim. Take a look at it.

    I don't have a problem with people doing sincere research that is based on solid methods -- rather than slick films full of hoaxes being dumped on an unwitting public -- even if their interest is somewhat speculative, as long as it doesn't have built-in offenses and nuttery.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. mark
    Member

    from Nicholas Levis, www.summeroftruth.org

    "Staging 9/11 as an inside job is going to work best (in fact, is likely to work only) if there actually exists an active network of anti-American terrorists who are deeply committed to killing Americans in response to U.S. policy. In other words, those who would blame Qaeda need a (relatively) real Qaeda. A partly-real enemy is much better than an entirely fabricated one.

    "The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among "real foreign terrorists." Let them come up with their own plots (or plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won't risk the whole game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for example). But it's best to have "real terrorists" in play. They leave a more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside observers into the plot and you don't have to hope they are all stupid, as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of "Qaeda." (Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist extremist networks.)

    "The best result would be for a whole bunch of Islamist extremists running around believing that their crew pulled off 9/11 all by themselves (how inspiring for them!). The patsies should believe they actually did it. This was the case with the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe: the patsy believed he had done it."


    http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/10/skin...

    I've long thought that if we assume a decision had been taken to let it happen, then we should expect that measures were be taken to ensure it happened precisely as desired, and spectacularly so. With so much at stake, nothing would be left to the skill and luck of the 19 hijackers. Flight 77's 270 degree turn to hit the ground floor of the virtually unoccupied side of the Pentagon, while supposedly piloted by the grossly incompetent Hani Hanjour, is the most striking example. The recent report that the WTC black boxes were recovered after all, is suggestive of the same: that the data conflicted somehow with the received fiction. Perhaps the hijackers were themselves hijacked.


    http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2005/07/more-on-londo...

    Friday, July 08, 2005 More on London bombs: I prefer the hybrid model for all these attacks, by which I mean the involvement of real Islamic terrorists guided by an intelligence agency. The intelligence agency funds much of the operation, chooses the targets and the time, and provides technical assistance. The Islamic terrorists provide most of the manpower. In some cases the terrorists are completely fooled into participating (probably what happened in Madrid, a Spanish police operation with Muslim men tricked into being in the wrong place at the wrong time), and in some cases they go along with the promptings of the intelligence agency as the operation fits into their own agenda.


    http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html

    remote controlled Boeings on 9/11? Flight 77 was steered into the nearly empty, recently reinforced and strengthened section of the Pentagon

    on this page

    Boeing's "auto-land" system Pentagon renovation program - the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, under reconstruction sector The alleged pilot flunked flight school Robot Warplanes Articles about remote control possibility The Lone Gunmen - fictional show about remote control hijacking six months before 9/11 (on Fox TV) Dov Zakheim, the Project for a New American Century, Remote Controlled 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon's Missing Trillions

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. truthmover
    Administrator

    I don't mean to rub you guys the wrong way, but none of the above is cutting it for me, and I'm surprised to see two of the most skeptical and uncompromising people I know in the movement backing discussion of something just as speculative in my eyes as any of the speculative lines of inquiry we so often deride as meaningless or distracting to our efforts.

    I happen to assume that they did use remote control technology. My assumption is meaningless.

    I find the "paper" above to be undergraduate work at best. The intro is shoddy and the contents merely establish something we all already knew and that is that the technology exists. I see not one shred of evidence that the technology was used on 9/11, and so this is pure speculation with no demonstration that we are even close to acquiring any solid evidence.

    Now that this paper has come out and Jones has decided to share his predictions about coming biological terrorism and mass public detentions, I'm far less confident in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. I'm certainly hoping other things they produce balance out what I consider to be very poor choices.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Well, don't exaggerate the quoted matter from me, it wouldn't cut it for me either as evidence for remote control, only as a parenthetical nod to the possibility since it isn't absurd (merely unprovable absent disclosure). It's one possibility for explaining Hani Hanjour's supposed maneuvers, but hardly the only one.

    As I remember, this was from a speculative discussion among 9/11 skeptics by e-mail about what the complete plot might have been. If you read it again, you'll see I'm answering the fairly common idea that there were no hijackers at all, or even real life patsies, i.e. that they were entirely fictional and that one shouldn't even address the official story or explore the statements about the alleged hijackers. I certainly disagree with that thinking.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. mark
    Member

    The warnings / foreknowledge (lihop) is the best proven evidence, although it is probably not the whole story.

    Of course, WHY is more important than HOW.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. truthmover
    Administrator

    I guess I got a bit carried away. As you guys can't edit posts, I'm trying not to abuse the privilege.

    I'm sensitive to what you guys advocate, and I'm also really frustrated by recent distraction. If you guys go soft all is lost. Or at least that's how I was feeling above. I did not mean to imply that we should not have the space here for speculation. The thought experiment Nick mentions above sounds interesting and could lead to new lines of inquiry.

    In the post above I was vigorously defending my understanding of academic process and rigor. Were this subject simply to have been raised here as a matter of speculation my response would have been far more relaxed. The paper above would have made a good post to one of our forums. In that light I certainly appreciate the effort that the author put into writing it.

    But if we are going to have organizations in our movement that are attempting to establish some level of academic credibility, the standard for scholarship needs to be pretty high.

    Obviously in this case I'm disappointed. And as I said, I was disappointed to hear about Jones' predictions. And I'm feeling pretty sore about Griffin right now.

    Trying not to have nightmares about the zombie plague that seems to infect everyone but me.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Jones's predictions?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. truthmover
    Administrator

    The "big crunch" is happening -- and it will surely get worse before too long. (I also warned about a probable pandemic and quarantine in that post). That is why I again urge you to prepare -- knowing what YOU know, I'm confident you will wish to take steps to prepare for what lies ahead. Here's what you can do right away (will you?)

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/18047

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. Diane
    Member

    Question about the remote-controlled planes hypothesis:

    How do you have remote-controlled planes without either (1) phone call fakery or (2) at the very least, a risk that the passengers will make phone calls contradicting the official story?

    I've always rejected the idea of remote-controlled planes on the grounds that (it has seemed to me) it would complicate the plot by requiring at least one of the above.

    The use of remote-controlled planes would also involve one or more technicians secretly installing the technology on specific airplanes belonging to two different airlines - a further logistical complication - with a likelihood that the technician(s) would put two and two together after the fact, if not initiated into the plot to begin with.

    If indeed anything was done to the WTC buildings besides hitting the Twin Towers with jet planes (a question on which I'm agnostic), my guess as to the most likely motive would have been simply to ensure that something spectacular happened anyway, in the event that the planes didn't hit their targets. Redundancy is logistically less complicated than trying to control every aspect of the day's events.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. Arabesque
    Member

    I've always rejected the idea of remote-controlled planes on the grounds that (it has seemed to me) it would complicate the plot by requiring at least one of the above.

    Here's the thing: For all we know the war games on 9/11 used remote control planes.

    It seems very likely that the planes used during the 9/11 attacks were part of the war game scenarios since they had planned these types of things (i.e. a 9/11 style attack) in the past.

    The ability of the alleged hijackers is also a big question mark.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. Diane
    Member

    Here's the thing: For all we know the war games on 9/11 used remote control planes.

    Perhaps so. But is it likely that the war games would have used passenger planes, belonging to commercial airlines, yet rigged for remote control? Or is it more likely that the war games would have used military drones designated for that purpose? Or are you suggesting a plane-swapping scenario?

    Anyhow, judging by the NORAD tapes (or at least the partial transcript in Vanity Fair in 2006), it would seem most likely that the war games involved primarily "inputs" (false radar blips) rather than real planes.

    The ability of the alleged hijackers is also a big question mark.

    I've seen lots of debate on how skilled they really had to be in order to do what they did. Not knowing any pilots personally, I'm not in a good position to resolve that issue.

    However, if indeed the alleged hijacker pilots lacked sufficient skill, my first guess would be not that the planes were remote-controlled, but that the FBI drew some wrong conclusions (perhaps based on disinfo from the CIA?) about which hijackers were the pilots. Perhaps the real (and much more skilled) pilots had been trained at some place not to be revealed, "for national security reasons"?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. truthmod
    Administrator

    I'm no alien technology buff, but I have very little faith that just because the corporations/government say they don't have it, they don't. Some speculation is fine, but it can quickly get out of hand. I think it also strains the credulity of people who are not already "believers." Facts first.

    http://911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html

    Carrying out a robotic takeover of some or all of the jetliners destroyed on 9/11/01 need not have required anything as elaborate as special equipment installed covertly on fleets of jetliners. Since modern jetliners are capable of being flown by their flight control computers, no special equipment is required, necessarily, to turn the aircraft into 'suicide bombs'. In 2003 Jerry Russell debunked the idea that specially outfitted planes were required...

    http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homeru...

    According to Joe Vialls, who describes himself as a British aeronautical engineer, the flight control computers of all 757s and 767s have a feature that enables them to be remotely controlled, for the purpose of aborting hijackings. Former German secretary of defense, Von Buelow, mentioned this theory in passing in a January, 2002 interview. The technology required for such systems has existed for decades. If such systems were operative on 9-11, they should have been used to take control of and land the hijacked jets.


    Without any verifiable evidence to support it, the "home-run" theory seems unlikely. It supposes that all 757s an 767s come with a special system contradicted by Boeing's published specifications. It also fails to explain how the pilots were silenced without the help of another theory, since any flight recovery system would not block communications, and calls might be made using cell phones. The theory that upgrades to the FMCS were used to program them to fly to their targets is simpler and more plausible.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a10...

    It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001] Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [Independent Television News, 4/24/2001] However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that “the technology is pretty much there” but still untried. [Observer, 9/16/2001] An aviation-security expert at Jane’s Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs “in the realms of science fiction.” [Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001] Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research “new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.” [New York Times,

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. Diane
    Member

    I don't deny the existence of remote-control technology for airplanes. What I question is the feasibility of installing it on a passenger jet, specifically a Boeing 757 or 767, belonging to a commercial airline.

    Boeing passenger jets in 2001 apparently did have auto-pilot. However, the pilot could override it:

    Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology by James Wallace Seattle Post-Intelligencer Monday, March 20, 2000

    Jim Hoffman seems to think that modifying a 757 or 767 to have remote control which the pilot could not override would require just a "software upgrade." I suspect it would require more than that.

    Furthermore, it seems likely that remote-controlled planes would not really solve the piloting-skills problem. Remote-controlled military drones have a higher accident rate than planes controlled by a human pilot, due in part to greater delay ("latency") in feedback for a remote-controlled plane, according to the following:

    And then there's the logistical problem of gaining access to passenger jets already owned by two different commercial airlines, in order to modify them (even with just a "software upgrade," if indeed that's all that would be required). I'm sure our intelligence agencies have their ways of infiltrating any organization they want to, but, still, this would be quite an extra hassle, it seems to me.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. emanuel
    Member

    Has it occurred to anyone that the hijakcers themselves perhaps did not realize they were on suicide missions, but thought they were going to be landing the planes somewhere, or even thought the planes were going to be landed somewhere via remote control? I find it hard to imagine the US could find 19 operatives willing to kill themselves. And weren't at least some of these hijackers well-connected to US intelligence? They were at least well protected for a long time (entering the country, during their flight school, etc). This doesn't seem to fit the profile of typical suicide bomber. Also remember the boastin gin the bar the night before, drinking alcohool. Not devout Muslim behavior.

    I believe it is plausible that the hijackers on Flight 93 realized their plane was going to be slammed into a building somewhere rather than landed safely as they were told (via phone calls from the passengers who learned the fate of the other planes), and they allowed the passengers into the cockpit to all try together to regain control of the plane. Hence it needed to be shot down quickly before any of the passengers blabbed over the phone about what was really happening.

    All speculation here of course.

    Emanuel

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. JohnA
    Member

    i just don't see how this sort of research forwards our cause.

    7 years after 9/11 we have seen powerful evidence of a governmental coverup - intentional lies - stonewalling - and organized disruption of our movement.

    some of the evidence we already have - in hand - represents a powerful mandate for activism. this evidence has been BURIED under an avalanche of misinformation - disinformation - urban legends - and irresponsible speculation.

    what exactly do we gain by talking about remote controlled planes and voice morphing at this late point in the game?

    what do we hope to achieve?

    does anyone here believe that these avenues of 'research' (and i use the term loosely) offer us a credible avenue towards gaining the public's support and general consensus in reopening 9/11?

    what is the POINT?

    is there a possibility that the planes were remote controlled? i suppose. i also suppose we could generate hundreds of possible hypothetical scenarios.

    but - given the gravity of our situation - and the serious nature of the subject at hand - just what do we stand to gain by introducing theories like this to the public?

    does it pass the smell test?

    will it encourage people to take us seriously?

    or are researchers like Jones caught in a loop - forever carving out a place for himself in the conspiracy theory niche market of populist sci-fi-type 9/11 fan clubs - predicated on the merchandising of ideas and theories?

    what exactly is Dr Jones doing?

    9/11 activism is NOT about selling ideas. it is about gaining the legal leverage to gain access to actionable testamony - thru subpoena power - and people power - to get to the TRUTH. 9/11 activism is not about selling theories.

    and where in HELL does Dr Jones get off predicting a pandemic?

    someone explain to me why i should NOT view this as yet one more exploitation of people's fears - cut from the same stone as Captain May and Alex Jones.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. chrisc
    Member

    I find it hard to imagine the US could find 19 operatives willing to kill themselves.

    I find it hard to imagine they could find 3, then again:

    By the end of World War II, the IJN had sacrificed 2,525 kamikaze pilots, and the IJA had lost 1,387.

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

    People can be convinced to do really stupid things..... :-/

    But I agree with John that speculation of this nature is not really going to help move things on, but I expect we all agree on this -- I'm sure if we were all able to meet for a beer to discuss this kind of stuff (speculation) then we wouldn't feel the need to put it into writing!

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. chrisc
    Member

    Regarding the next pandemic "scare", I started listening to the shows that Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone did on this and found it just too scary, but this was a while ago, I think my doom tolerance level is now higher and I should probably listen to them again....

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part One
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim050315.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Two
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim050322.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Three: Staging the Operation
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim050329.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Four: Unraveling the Fabric of Life
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim050405.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Five: Weapons of the Terror State
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim050419.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Six: The New Dr. Strangelove's Biological Armageddon
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim050426.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Seven: From Military Lab to Mass Infection
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim060411.mp3

    Creating the Next Pandemic, Part Eight: Profits and Repression
    http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim060418.mp3

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. mark
    Member

    Boeing's "auto land" patent says that it is an uninterruptible auto pilot capable of overriding controls in the cockpit.

    Yes, it's speculation and unprovable, but the only plausible explanation for why Flight 77 was steered into the mostly empty part of the Pentagon.

    It would probably take much less technical work than the voice morphing scenario (which is unadulterated nonsense).

    It is possible it's not true. The warnings of foreknowledge and the efforts to block the FBI agents from stopping the attacks are very well documented from mainstream sources, which is why all of the media and much of the "truth" movement ignores these facts.

    As always, the real issue is WHY they allowed and assisted the attacks, and to put it into the broader contexts.

    www.oilempire.us/remote.html

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. Arabesque
    Member

    Anyhow, judging by the NORAD tapes (or at least the partial transcript in Vanity Fair in 2006), it would seem most likely that the war games involved primarily "inputs" (false radar blips) rather than real planes.

    I am not sure about the exact number, but according to Michael Ruppert, he has confirmed that there were "live-fly" hijackings taking place.

    I have obtained an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD, which confirmed that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs (Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner. That is just the tip of what I have uncovered. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_t...

    This means that there were "real" planes posing as hijacked aircraft on 9/11.

    We can confirm that there were E-4b's in the sky on 9/11. If memory serves me right there could have been three of these planes (they are considered to be a version of an "Pentagon" in the sky), and they could have been posing as hijacked airliners. This is speculation, but it seems very plausible to me.

    Were they being remotely piloted? Were they being flown by pilots? This is unclear to me, but it seems possible that they could have been remotely piloted.

    And also, military radar is likely sophisticated to tell the difference between a "real" object and a fake blip.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. Arabesque
    Member

    The Air Force has a fleet of four E-4Bs, one of which, as noted, is always kept on alert status. [....] According to a 2002 story in the Omaha World-Herald, on the day of the September 11 attack three of the E-4Bs were participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/G...

    So I would say it is at least possible that these planes could have been interpreted as "hijacked". It is noteworthy that the E-4b by the white house had its transponder turned off.

    In fact, many confused radar reports of this plane with F77, including Ari Fleischer and an air traffic controller.

    "Colin Scoggins at Boston flight control calls NEADS to report a low-flying airliner he has spotted six miles southeast of the White House. He can offer no details regarding its identity. The plane is reportedly Flight 77, but as it has its transponder turned off, no one realizes this at the time. The news of the plane ‘sets off a frenzy.’” http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-...

    It was not flight 77:

    “Scoggins told me that after the Pentagon strike he assumed, like everyone else, that this unidentified plane he reported at 9:36 AM was Flight 77. He was also under the impression that it made a pass near the White House. Scoggins is not alone in this view. Even today, many people think Flight 77 flew over Washington before striking the Pentagon. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer actually gave rise to one of these stories, which were widely reported in the media.” http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. Victronix
    Member

    i just don't see how this sort of research forwards our cause.

    What is the cause then, if not to uncover the truth?

    Asking how the actual events could have happened and posing reasonable hypotheses is not damaging. The Journal should publish essays which are based in science and reason, and for the most part, it does that. This is not utter speculation. The Journal is full of refutations of claims which are not based in science. This isn't one of those. It openly examines the plausibility of a scenario and admits where information is missing and where compelling relationships exist, but it makes no broad speculative claims as disinfo does, mainly admits a possibility.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.