Where's the Remote Control?
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/01/wheres-remote-control.html
Some writers have claimed that the 9/11 hijacked airplanes were flown by remote control. So far, nothing has convinced me that the airplanes were controlled remotely.
However, as demonstrated below, the technology did in fact exist to control commercial airplanes by remote control as of September 11, 2001:
"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground". See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways "suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack."
Indeed, Boeing states of its 757-200 (the type of airplane which slammed into the Pentagon), "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."
In fact, Before 9/11, remote-controlled planes could fly up to 8600 miles (from the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain's International Television News)
Interestingly, Fox TV ran a fictional drama 6 months before 9/11, in which the U.S. government intended to fly a plane into the World Trade Center via remote control and blame it on terrorists.
So it is beyond doubt that the hijacked planes could have been controlled remotely. Were they? I am still waiting for convincing proof.
- Login to post comments
I would look for the remotes
I would look for the remotes in building 7. I would also suggest you focus your attention to the 23rd floor as I beleive thats where they may have last been put to use.
Anyone remember on that
Anyone remember on that Flight 93 movie on Discovery (I think) not too long ago? I remember hearing the tapes of the passenger phone calls where one person was talking to what appeared to be a male ground control person. Regardless to whether you think those calls were fake or not, I distinctly remember the male ground control person say to the passenger something like "Don't worry, the plane can land itself." Anybody remember that?
only one call(faked) was
only one call(faked) was reportedly recorded and only a small portion of that call which came from Cathy Ong FA. If I'm not mistaken that which your recalling is from "renacted calls" based on the accounts as remembered by those whom recieved the faked phone calls. "Mom it's me Mark Bingham."
I'm always surprised to hear
I'm always surprised to hear someone question the possibility that such technology even exists that could fly the planes by remote control.
1. We know of flight simulators. Many folks have some type of simulator on their home computer.
2. We know of remote control toy airplanes.
3. We know of several different applications of remote control that the military already uses.
Is there any question it's possible and not too tricky? ;-)
WTC7 was "vaporized" for a reason, which has led me to conclude that remote control is much more than a remote possibility!
I dont think technology
I dont think technology should even be a question. Next once you know the twin towers and 7 were dropped with explosives you know 911 was an inside job orchestrated by professionals. No way they would go to all the trouble of everything involved with this operation and then take any chance whatsoever that the planes might not reach there targets for the grand finale. They would not leave the hijacking and flying up to chance by depending on idiots. This would be done by professional insiders who are not going to give there lives for the cause of false flag terror by actually being on the planes. Flying the planes on a computer would also take away the chance of someone getting cold feet when confronted with there own death as with a suicide mission. More effective would be to have someone stareing possible consequence only if the planes didnt impact there targets. Im sure whoever did this had alot of simulated practice before the real deal like playing a video game. The real deal was probably no different than the practice. There is an interesting interview with a professional pilot discussing the events of 911 on gunsandbutter.net in the radio archives. Check it out. Does he sound like a bullshitter?
My theory is different. The
My theory is different.
The APOLLO GUARDIAN and other exercises involved flying a drone, a simulated ATTACKER plane, and the response to it, i.e. the shooting down WAS THE AIM OF THE REHEARSAL.
Now, if YOU were the executor of 911:
- you would not want ANYONE TO KNOW.
- you want everyone else to work on a need to know basis, and for peace of mind, tell them a cover story of WHAT they are doing.
- you then switch the TERMINAL, and bingo.. the people thinking they are flying a SIMULATION, are flying the real thing.
you'd need a PATCH-THROUGH point, maybe the MICKEY-MOUSE-EARS EC Hercules 130 flying nearby, that would connect your consoles to the 767.
Afterwards, you would need to kill the remote-controllers, as they would KNOW THAT THEY flew the planes into the WTC, from watching TV.. they wouild know that their 'SIMULATION' became reality ...
http://google.com/search?q=boston+bizarre+simulation
Hence the missile into the ONI NAVY INTELLIGENCE section in the pentagon.
My guess is that the people who flew the planes ... sat there... and burned to death.
Look at the list of victims inside the pentagon.. lots of
NAVY ELECTRONIC SPECIALISTS.
the ONI (Office of Naval intelligence) prides itself on being the oldest, and most-dirty-tricks-player of all the 26 USA secret service spook-criminals.
Hey guys, I agree the true
Hey guys, I agree the true orchestrators could not allow those planes to fly into the buildings on their own. There is simply too much that could go wrong, therefore they had to make sure the planes hit their targets.
However, instead of remote control, how about simply programming the planes to hit their targets? With the use of GPS technology, couldn't the planes simply have been programmed to reach their destination? Much more accurate and fool-proof then trying to remotely control them.
Doesnt really matter either
Doesnt really matter either way it was done. I just know this was not left to chance with patsies. If the official story is there was hijackers Im thinking it was anything but that. All I know is BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOOM!!!
Oh really? - it doesn't
Oh really?
- it doesn't matter now, does it?
- you don't care who did it?
would you care if your sister and her baby
was disembowelled by CIA drone bombs, like
happened yesterday in Pakistan?
would you care that the same people who fried and smashed 3000 New Yorkers go on in their mission?
would you even cheer them on, saying:
Yippiee... sacrifices have to be made, but thank god our US dollar- system is safe from collapse and our poor can work as burger-flippers??
Diginity, who cares!
Yea dude thats what im
Yea dude thats what im saying slapdick.
There is something called
There is something called "Beaming".
Americans, as ever, have
Americans, as ever, have been shat in the brains.
Take a look at
Take a look at this:
http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/FCS-700_PrintFriendly.html
"The FCS-700 is a fully digital, fail operational autopilot flight director system. The system, part of the Boeing 757 and 767 flight control system, performs tasks associated with control wheel steering, flight director commands, speed selection, altitude selection, heading selection, autopilot, autoland, and system fault isolation."
This is most likely NOT the whole system that would permit remote control or pre-programmed flight paths, taking control away from pilots without their permission or influence. However, it could have been modified to interface with some other equipment for that purpose.
What I find interesting is that the FCS-700 was/is used exclusively on 757s and 767s. Could that have been one of the reasons for choosing those two types of aircraft?
The post quoted, but did not
The post quoted, but did not cite, http://boeing.com/commercial/757family/200back/back4.html in which we learn that:
1. "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." (as quoted)
2. "The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available"
3. "Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical"
So what pertains the a 757 pertains to a 767, which means that even in the extremely unlikely event that it really was flights 11 and 175 which struck the towers, no special "remote control" or "beaming" (or WTC 7, for that matter) would have been needed -- such planes come equipped from the factory with most if not all of the necessary capabilities already built-in to hit WTC targets without requiring any suicidal hijackers whatsoever.
It's actually quite fascinating, with the benefit of hindsight, to go back and view our original VHS recordings from 9/11 and watch as the media embellishes the legend of hijackers while ignoring (gatekeeping, concealing; as in, "what else could it possibly be?") this info from Boeing.
_______________________________________