FBI Claims To Review Hypothesis For Exclusive GPS Guided Autopilot Control Of 9/11 Aircraft

In a letter signed by Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Counterterrorism Division, National Security Branch, it is claimed that a hypothesis regarding exclusive GPS guided autopilot control of the four aircraft destroyed during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 is under review. The FBI notice is in response to receipt of a twenty page thesis describing the aircraft attacks of September 11, 2001 being potentially within the capability solely of autopilot and navigation systems of American Airlines and United Airlines Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft and upgraded Global Positioning System (GPS) technology circa 2001.

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


Most excellent!

Shall we give the FBI 30 days to review the hypothesis before we all start calling our representatives and senators and demand that they ask the FBI how their review is going, with special attention to the members of the appropriate committees and subcommittees?

Mr. Monaghan, you are going to have to let me buy you dinner for this one...

You totally ROCK!!!

I think we should make this August recess the most active one for the congressional staff in history.

We have the truth on our side, brothers and sisters, it's time we use it to full advantage!

Combine this with the nano-thermite paper and we have a one-two punch.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Interesting Additional Information

The following remarkable Air China auto-pilot GPS test flight was performed by the same systems scheduled to be contained by United and American 757s and 767s during the late 1990, including via retrofit:

"Guided entirely by autopilot, an Air China Boeing 757 jet last month snaked along a narrow river valley between towering Himalayan peaks ... the airplane automatically followed the twists of the valley, descending on a precisely plotted highway in the sky toward a runway still out of sight ... Using global-positioning satellites and on-board instruments, Naverus' navigation technology pinpoints the location of a fast-moving jet to within yards ... "You're watching the whole thing unfold. The airplane is turning, going where it's supposed to go ... it's all automatic.""[14]

"For this RNP approach in Tibet, an Air China Boeing 757 was relying on dual GPS receivers, flight path computers and inertial reference systems ... the aircraft we are on is equipped with Honeywell Pegasus flight management systems and Rockwell Collins multi-mode receivers."[15]

[14] Kent company bringing a navigation revolution

[15] Air China's First RNP Approach Into Linzhi Airport, Tibet

"Operators of 757s and 767s may also choose to upgrade to the recently certified Future Air Navigation System (FANS) FMC (Pegasus), which is Y2K-ready and available. Service bulletins for the 757 and 767 FANS retrofit will be issued upon operator request."


One interesting capability of the FANS FMC technology:

""Dynamic Rerouting, meaning the ability of controllers ... to change a filed routing once the flight is in progress ... "[The] new flight plan with all new waypoints goes into the data link to the comm satellite and is then downlinked into the FMSes of the individual aircraft," ... "And 'Wow,' say all the old pilots, 'Untouched by human hands!'" ... Our [dispatch] computer uplinks a route into the FMS that is identified as 'Route 2.' [You're already flying 'Route 1.']"



FARNBOROUGH, ENGLAND, SEPT. 7, 1998 - The Honeywell "Pegasus" flight management system earned its first FAA certifications March on the Boeing 757, 767 and MD-90 aircraft types ... Airlines get FANS-1/FANS-A capability ... FANS-1 ... allows operators to obtain more economical routings and to utilize satellite navigation.


Rockwell's Collins Landing System Picked for Both Airbus and Boeing Planes

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, Sept. 6, 1996 /PRNewswire/ -- Rockwell's Collins Commercial Avionics, based in Cedar Rapids, has made major announcements of the selection of its Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) landing system by two of the world's leading aircraft manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing ... Subsequent certifications are planned for Boeing's ... 757 and 767 ... The Multi-Mode Receiver ... expands capabilities required by the air transport industry as the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) is phased into operation.


The above noted "highways in the sky were as narrow as 243 feet.

RNP .02 Performance Illustration/Boeing 767-200/WTC Tower (208 Feet Wide)

"WAAS also supports required navigation performance (RNP) operations, says Raytheon, providing a precision navigation capability down to RNP 0.02 (an accuracy of 0.02nm)."


1 nautical mile = 6,076 feet

RNP 0.02 = RNP (0.02 nautical mile radius) x 2 = RNP (121.5 foot radius) x 2 = a 243 foot wide corridor.

"Accuracy and integrity are expressed in terms of nautical miles and represent a containment radius of a circle centered around the computed FMC position where there is a defined containment probability level of the actual aircraft being inside the containment radius. For accuracy the containment probability level is 95%."[13]

[13] RNP Capability of FANS 1 FMCS Equipped 757/767

Thanx LW.

Another jab to the face of the beast!

"on the record" means a step forward, congratulations!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

The last 12 seconds of UA175

Please, please see this :

We have proved that the last seconds were a work of a computer! It's in the trajectory!



That's really interesting and their are definate legs for the...

arguments you present through your analysis.

Thank you!

Now you've got to get together with Adrian to make sense to the layman on what it all means!

I get it but I have the aviation background.

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Is it possible

to distinguish remote control from flight director? This would further rule out any cockpit interaction.

Hi SnowCrash...

Flight Director must be working to a point in space via IRS and GPS (if fitted with the MMR Multi mode Receiver) for the pilot to follow using the FD. The AP simply works using the same info but engaging the FCC's (Flight Control Computers) to move the control surfaces, which react much faster than a human.

On the 767-200 I believe it had "Manual Mode" on Mode Control Panel of the Auto Pilot active. This means that it is still possible that they could correct the attitude as seen using visual only or the flight director if tracking to a point or beacon etc. So I mean that you use the AP to control the aircraft but you can make easy adjustments to the attitude of the aircraft through Manual Mode via control wheel steering inputs. The point of this last article is that it all happening too fast to react to wind etc manually. The average reaction time of a fully alert individual is around .7 of a second....so could they do it with Control Wheel Steering in Manual Mode?

On the question of remote control....there are so many ways of achieving it but I think GPS aided control directly to the FCC's is the most reliable to me. I also think supplying the data remotely is more reliable in principal...but it definitely could be all on board with out a doubt.

Does any know if that info about the planes being out of service for 9 months is verified?

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Thanks John

Are you saying that extremely fast altitude adjustments preclude flight director from being used to fly into the WTC buildings?

"Does any know if that info about the planes being out of service for 9 months is verified?"

Nope, the answer by the BTS to Aidan's FOIA request was, in my opinion, fraudulent. A debunker later discovered an online BTS database that had the answers they were legally bound to provide to Aidan in the first place. However, I believe most of us never believed the planes were grounded from january to september 11th, although JREF'ers might attempt to spin it that way. (Their usual modus operandi)


Yes I suppose...is that not what Aidan is saying also?

I should not comment because I don't know how this aircraft was configured...so here are some thoughts not facts..

If the pilot was using the FD what was it using as its reference? Nothing I know of except GPS would do the job, and as far as I am aware in its commercial con fig at the time that was not an option to use GPS/GPS rather it would use IRS/DME etc for a wavepoint position using the Flight Management System. Where do you get the height from...altitude select maybe...?

I have never thought the aircraft were flown by pilots as the skill required to follow the FD or using a pure visual approach is close to impossible. Using FD to an ILS style beacon in the tower could be a possibility and then the FD would be useful for AP or manual flying giving an accuracy of a few feet.

I need to talk to Aidan on the phone about a few things...but it does seem like a very fast reaction even if Manual Mode/Control Wheel Steering was available and used. Our aircraft have had the AP Manual Mode/Control Wheel Steering System Deactivated for some time now so it would be good to know if it was fitted to 175 and 11.

So to clarify..the aircraft were not grounded for 9 months, in your view, in alls view? Dis info?

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Re: Grounding

Yes, I think the planes were not grounded.

I wouldn't call it disinfo, although I believe the BTS's response could be called fraudulent, as it seems that the 2001 flight information was readily accessible even on the internet! (see the links to comments from Aidan and me)

Furthermore, plane spotters spotted all four planes in 2001, in various locations, on various dates. They took pictures in which you can see the plane numbers.

However, flight 77 remains mysterious: it fails to turn up in that online BTS database. The only info available for 2001 seems to be from plane spotters (see the link to my comment)

As for the FD vs. remote control discussion, thanks for that answer, I'll tell you what I usually say with such an interesting topic: it should be expanded upon in a blog entry or so.

For reference: previous FD discussion involving Robert Hordon

2001 Pre-9/11 Flight History Available Via BTS Search Engine

Hi John:

Although BTS FOIA records only reflect flight history for 3 of 4 9/11 planes until 12/2000, a searchable BTS database reveals that the 9/11 planes were in San Francisco and Los Angeles the previous day. Searches apparently cannot be performed via tail numbers. Dates, airports, airlines etc. seem to be the only searchable parameters. BTS FOIA officer claims their data was obtained from the same BTS site via tail number search:

From: Robert.Monniere@dot.gov
To: a_monaghan@xxx.xxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Update on FOIA Request

According to the Office of Airline Information, in order to locate the responsive records, they performed a search in the following database: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ with the “tail numbers” you provided in your FOIA request. I hope this information is helpful.

Robert A. Monniere


RITA's Office of the Chief Counsel



According to NOAA records, there was a SE 4 knot crosswind (roughly perpendicular to UA 175's approximate NE trajectory) during the hours of the attacks. To your knowledge, during 767 en route flight at cruise speeds, do you feel course adjustments via autopilot (to compensate for mild crosswinds) are instant and ongoing or made less frequently, in order to remain on intercept course with a given waypoint? Do autopilot control surface movements occur slowly in the interest of smooth operation or can they occur more rapidly as needed?

It seems UA 175's trajectory is remarkably smooth and continuous (CBS footage) until the final adjustment (soft roll) before impact. The soft roll may either be indicative of pilot or autopilot operation. Do manual control surface adjustments occur slowly in the interest of smooth operation or can they be made to occur more rapidly as needed?

If I recall, according to NOAA records, average daily wind speeds for September 11, 2001 were among top 1/3 for lowest speeds during the year.

Thanks again.


IMHO the fact that the last 2 maneuvers (5s and 2s bi) flew the plane into perpendicular and horizontal vector indicates that the last seconds were without any human intervention.

and IMO GPS itself would have problems with that precision, I think that there was some beacon on the 81st floor, remember there were loads of servers and batteries on that floor

the trajectory of the plane reminds me a start of landing on a runway (software....)

btw. the plane flew precisely into location where the core column (box column - WF column) trnasitions were

Somebody in the FBI

has to be an honest soul, dedicated to the pursuit of truth & being an honest law enforcement man or women

A specific unit of the navy has

been doing remote controlled operations since 1964.

I can't remember their name E7?

Hell, where flying & bombing Pakistan without a pilot!

Please find out

I find this extremely interesting. If you need my help let me know.

snow crash

I recently visited warren grove air base & in a hangar they had an article about this specific navy division. I can't remember their name, but it was a letter followed by a number. the article had them remote controlling boston whaler boats for target practice for the military. circa 1964. they are now out of VA & provide dummies planes, boats etc. for target practice.

I looked them up on the web & found yearly published reports, from the 60's.

It made me feel like a MORON, for actually wondering if they could remote control the airplanes in 2001. While I was "wondering" if they could do this the military, had this technology & was using it back in the 60's!

Operation Northwoods 1962 was to remotely fly passenger jets

a. An aircraft at Eglin ABB would be painted and
numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
• substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered
aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-oarrying
aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AIB vthere arrangements will
have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft
meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.

But great work again with the trajectories guys, very compelling evidence.


Was it N78?



Michael J. Heimbach's letter

To a FL based truth group stated "Mr. Gage presents an "interesting theory backed by thorough research and analysis." Maybe Mr. Heimbach is an honest soul?


Conclusion is the best


For those who don't get through the whole article, I'm putting the conclusion here as it's highly important:

Evidence of Precise Navigation
Contributing to the plausibility of precision automated control of the two aircraft striking the WTC, is the fact that each aircraft struck precisely the bottom regions of the only sections within each WTC tower only recently upgraded with thermal protection materials. This would suggest a clandestine relationship between the visually spectacular aircraft attacks upon the WTC and activity pre-September 11, 2001 within each WTC aircraft impact region, intended to initiate structural failure not generated by the aircraft attacks themselves and contribute to an appearance of structural failures caused by each aircraft impact.

Now, let's see what happens when they review your precise observations.

What entity is appropriate?

I sure would like to know what "the appropriate entity" is. For all we know, it may be the round file (not to disparage Mr. Monaghan's tireless efforts). I would not be surprised if this letter were typed by Heimbach himself. The writer got GPS wrong ("GSP") and "terrorist" wrong in the first sentence (should be either "terror" or "terrorists" (plural - there were 19 of them, weren't there?) and also omitted the apostrophe in "terrorists" (should be terrorists') in the second paragraph. A professional secretary would not have made these mistakes. The "appreciation" expressed in the last sentence is unusual (to me anyway) only because it is not necessary - a simple form letter response would have sufficed. The language is very similar to the response the Florida Gator truth group received from Mr. Heimbach. Mr. Monaghan, any comment?

Mech Engr P.E.


Like the anthrax investigation, they handled that really well too.

Where is Dave Frasca these days? His excellent FBI protection for Al Qaeda is sorely missed in jihadist circles.
Sorry to be cynical, but they're just throwing a bone. Whatever good forces exist in the FBI don't have the power nor the influence to stop the ship from sinking.
This response is heartening, but promises don't put people behind bars. The biggest advantage this offers is that we can quote FBI support.

As for remote control research, it's entirely legitimate and I think the work is extremely important.

Let's not forget about Mike Maltbie,

Mr. Frasca's buddy and co-conspirator at FBI headquarters!

I think someone needs to point out to AG Holder that these two need to be investigated thoroughly.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.