New video about 9/11 flight routes and the possibility of remote control

A new film of 6 minutes length has been released today, asking simple questions about the detours in the flight routes of the 9/11 hijackings, about "radar gaps", the simultaneous events between 8.46 and 8.56 a.m. that morning, as well as about the possibilitiy of remote control and the role of the war games:

Why did all four hijacked planes on 9/11 take long detours? How did the hijackers know about "radar holes"? How could they conduct key hijacking events simultaneously all within 10 minutes? Who controlled the planes?

For German readers: more in depth analysis of these issues is also available in a 5-page article in the recent print edition of news magazine "Hintergrund" (, as well as in a detailed report in the online news magazine "Telepolis" (, published on Sept. 7 - both articles written by me.

Autopilot The Most Likely "Remote Control" Method

Human controlled UAVs require providng a remotely located pilot with an ability to see.

Without visual control, automation is the only (and most reliable) alternative. Providing a less reliable remotely located pilot an ability to see would have required unique and extensive modifications of the non-fly-by-wire 9/11 Boeings.

In fact, human pilots only fly commercial Boeings just 3 minutes during a typical commercial flight. The vast majority of such a flight is under autopilot control.

"Pilots use automated systems to fly airliners for all but about three minutes of a flight: the takeoff and landing."

Autopilot use for the 9/11 planes might be reflected in the airlines ACARS data held by the FBI and refused under FOIA lawsuit. The Air France 447 ACARS data revealed autopilot mode operations.

Is the 9/11 ACARS data manufactured? According to 9/11 Commission records, an ACARS message was received by UA 93 at the OH/PA border from Champaign, IL (400 miles away). Yet ACARS transmissions are limited to 200 miles.

As for transponders being turned off in areas with problematic radar coverage, that was the case for only 2 of the 4 flights.

A bigger question may be whether the 757-767 multi-mode transponder broadcasts could only be affected manually (i.e.: by the "hijackers"). The Mode S function seems to have interesting ties to data link operation, making its broadcasts possibly subject to non-manual or remote operation.


It would be good to discuss both of those options in terms of controlling the planes.

We thought the radar gaps issue was very interesting and hadn't previously seen the paths overlaid with those gaps.

Is there any possibility that

the planes were switched? It seems like an easier plan would have been to have experienced pilots with guns take over the planes and land them, send up remote controlled planes, bring them into the vicinity, and guide them (honing device possibly) into their targets from a command center close by.

I just find it hard believe that a "black op" of this magnitude would be left up to humans who would have to kill themselves in order for it to work.

Also, if they had gone to that length to bring in the original planes, I think clear videos of the planes logos and numbers would have showed up.

Just some thoughts.

No Apparent Need For "Northwoods" Style Plane Swaps

The GPS-guided, datalink Flight Management Systems of the Boeing 757s and 767s used, made the attacks entirely possible without pilot control. Augmented GPS service circa 2001 was accurate enough to facilitate the impact of a 757/767 with the WTC towers under autopilot control.

Remote drones proposed for Operation Northwoods were for the purpose of preserving the lives of the proposed CIA agents to be aboard the plane to be swapped.

Plane swaps on 9/11 also seem very unlikely given that the NYC medical examiners office IDd the remains of those aboard the aircraft. Also, any drones intended for swapping would surely have been detected by radar and ATC. There were no such reports.

Thanks Aidan

Great to have someone so knowledgeable about planes etc.