Where's the Remote Control?

Here's my take on the possibility that the 9/11 planes were remote controlled. What do you think?

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."

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)

Indeed, more than 40 years ago, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested shooting down a military drone airplane, pretending it was a real airplane, and then blaming the attack on the Cubans as a way to justify an invasion of Cuba. See also this searchable html version of the relevant documents.

And airplanes could be flown by remote-control least as far back as 1944, as demonstrated by this secret mission by President John F. Kennedy's older brother involving the remote-control flying of a bomb-laden airplane to attack German targets inside France.

And coincidentally, 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?

Well, it is indeed strange that the guy who supposedly flew a huge Boeing 757 into the Pentagon with the skill of a military jet fighter reportedly "could not fly at all". Strange, indeed.

But I am still waiting for convincing proof."

I think remote is the most

I think remote is the most logical option.
I just went thru the commission report to find how the hijackers supposidly reached their targest, but i didn't find anything. Does anybody know how the official version goes? Did they use GPS or something? Or are we really suppose to believe they found their targets by looking thru the window?

I think 2 unmanned drones

I think 2 unmanned drones struck the WTC. I think a drone, missile, or planted explosives blew up @ the Pentagon; and something was shot-down or blown-up some miles from Shanksville, PA.

(The above explains why there was nothing to “intercept” near the Pentagon; that all the phone calls & black-box recordings released were certainly phony; nothing real was found @ Shanksville; etc.)

Here is more on the Raytheon

Here is more on the Raytheon and Zakheim remote control possibilities.

If you consider 911 was at

If you consider 911 was at least LIHOP, and Rumsfeld was in on the plot, there must have been someone controlling that plane that R would trust not to fly it into him, as he was in the Pentagon at the time.
It would seem unlikely to me such a person would be found inside this flying devise at the moment of impact, thus making some form of remotecontrol the most likely scenario.

at the 0:00:05 mark, look

GW, have u ever heard of Dov

GW, have u ever heard of Dov Zakheim and his System Planning Corporation ?
Check this link out, near the middle of the page:

i wonder if we could come up

i wonder if we could come up with 9 hundred and 11 questions, lol :-)

MURRAY: Add that to the list


Add that to the list of questions.

That gives me an idea.

I should register "911questions.net" and we can generate a huge list of unanswered questions on the page with links/sources regarding each question.

.com is taken (though unused apparently)

Thanks. The question remains

Thanks. The question remains then: Why didn't the military shut GPS down?
"The US military has developed the ability to locally deny GPS (and other navigation services) to hostile forces in a specific area of crisis without affecting the rest of the world or its own military systems."

Mohammad Atta: You know him,

Mohammad Atta:

You know him, he's the guy with the post-it note over his face. ;-)

The FBI found transactions

The FBI found transactions that show Atta used a credit card in Manhattan the day before the planes crashed into the World Trade Center. Until recently, law enforcement officials could not figure out why he was here. New evidence has emerged that leads investigators to believe Atta made a last-minute visit to double-check coordinates of the twin towers and plug them into a sophisticated Global Positioning System device bought by the hijackers, the source said.

MURRAY: http://foi.missouri.e



With the coordinates of the twin towers entered as the desired destination, the devices would tell the hijackers when they were off course as they flew thousands of feet above the ground.

AFA I'm concerned, there's

AFA I'm concerned, there's no convincing proof the planes were not flown remote control

according to a flyer I got

according to a flyer I got at the Ritter/McGovern speech, they were not planes but missles dressed to look as planes. I couldn't help but chuckle and show Jon.

I don't know about that, but

I don't know about that, but the idea of muslims with box cutters successfully hijacking 4 commerical airplanes and hitting both twin towers and the pentagon with that 300 degree turn, is absurd upon absurd.

The remote control theory is the easiest most understandable approach

..especially when there's no

..especially when there's no proof otherwise

I revised the article.

I revised the article. Please see the last couple of paragraphs, about Hani Hanjour.

The remote control theory is

The remote control theory is the easiest most understandable approach

it accounts for all the anomalies, just as CD at the WTC.

remote for sure. it doesn't

remote for sure. it doesn't appear that a boeing hit the pentagon; therefore, the hanjour stuff wouldn't matter in that context. secondly, the strike on the towers were clean and flown from quite some distance. i mean, did the invisible government hire some truly skilled kamikazes? the patsies certainly couldn't do it.

the Luciferian Germanic

the Luciferian Germanic Death cults remote controlled them from WTC 7.

haha ;-)

feel the power of my

feel the power of my bullhorn.

Sorry i just saw 'a scanner darkly' tonight and when Alex Jones was shouting on the streets and then gets tasered I almost fell out of my chair.

A PROFESSOR of engineering

A PROFESSOR of engineering is to destroy a Glasgow tower block in an effort to understand why the Twin Towers collapsed in the 9/11 attacks.


someone should tell him to

someone should tell him to fill the place with jetfuel too.

Also^, it is very risky to

Also^, it is very risky to fly real remote-controlled or pre-programmed airliners with pilots, crew, & passengers inside. These folks could "try desperate things" that could lead to a landing or crash-landing with survivors who could talk, & wreckage that could reveal remote-control, GPS, whatever.

Does anyone wish to

Does anyone wish to challange me on my above 2 posts?

yes, what are the passengers

yes, what are the passengers and the crew gonna do even if they find out they cant control the plane? break open the doors? i dont see many options there for them but to just pray and watch.they cant override the controls if its controlled from the ground.

Pilot, crew, or passengers

Pilot, crew, or passengers could try to disable the auto-pilot, pull out wires, or smash controls, etc.

They could try to get S.O.S. messages out via air-phones, emergency radios, or other methods.

The system could fail, and landed or crash-landed survivors could report that they had been flown via remote-control.

It was far less risky to use drones to hit all targets.

Also^, the drones could be

Also^, the drones could be meticulously modified & even tested in secret. I would be more difficult to modify commercial airliners that are in use.

I don't like to cover

I don't like to cover anything but the demolition, but from what I can see. All the planes used had come from Andrews AFB and where not what they were supposed to be.

ie, they switched planes.

The planes therefore, must have been dupes and radio controlled, (no sense killing someone when you have, and therefore must test, the technology)

Identical to Operation Northwoods.

But again, the speculation only hinders our real progress...


everything else is mute until this first domino falls!

This was a great post,

This was a great post, thanks.

Actually, nothing is clear about those 9/11 planes, so we can safely assume that we really don't know very much about them. Here's a little something I wrote on the issue:

The strange saga of the 9/11 planes

Very interesting^. And

Very interesting^.
And everyone should study "Operation Northwoods." It reads like a blueprint for 9/11. It specifies swapped drones, imposter passengers, fake funerals, etc.

wouldn't opening the door or

wouldn't opening the door or breaking windows cause the pain severe problems?

everything else is mute

everything else is mute until this first domino falls!
The Last Prophet | Homepage | 07.23.06 - 1:26 pm | #

While I don't agree that the first domino is controlled demolition, I do agree that there are more pressing issues than "swapped planes" to address. The hard, documented factual evidence should come first, which should open the floodgates.

Okay, but don't forget that

Okay, but don't forget that Operation Northwoods came within the swipe of JFK's pen of being enacted!

Luckily, JFK had a conscience. Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice do not!

"I would be more difficult

"I would be more difficult to modify commercial airliners that are in use."

I think you will find that not to be the case. Forensic economist and s9/11t full member David Hawkins has quite a bit to say about illigally modified Boeing aircraft used by the "Red team" w/in the Global Guardian War Game scenario.


"It would be more difficult

"It would be more difficult to modify commercial airliners that are in use."

I don't think commercial airliners in service are quite as accessible as dones in some top-secret gov't airfield.

DHS: regarding

DHS: regarding this:

Youre saying Atta was in full control of the plane? I mean I can buy it, but why wasnt this released before hand? Google "Our Presentation"(the new loose change final cut footage) and see the clip where a millitary guy is watching the 9/11 footage and wondering how crappy pilots took over complicated jumbo jets and did pinpoint strikes.

The planes for damn sure

The planes for damn sure weren't flown by humans onboard into their targets.

"Remote control" is possibly a misleading way of describing what likely took place. The planes were almost certainly computer-guided into their targets, much as the various guidance systems on cruise missiles or ICBMs work. Such a guidance system would likely be onboard, taking cues from gyroscopes, GPS, and/or some form of "painting" of the target (such as with a laser or radio beacon), etc.