Air Force FOIA Records For Alleged Pre-9/11 Pilotless, Remotely Controlled Boeing Test Flight

The following Air Force FOIA records pertain to Air Force and Raytheon test flights reported by the Associated Press and Germany's Der Spiegel, that took place during the weeks before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that allegedly were performed without an onboard pilot.

From the History Commons:

Instead, 6 of 16 total runway approaches and touchdowns were performed with a donated FedEx Boeing 727 aircraft and auto-pilot systems, relying on enhanced GPS navigation signals that provide for extremely accurate aircraft placement.

From the July 31, 2008 AF FOIA reply:

"The Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense are each developing GPS based precision approach and landing systems. These systems are known as the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), respectively. The JPALS/LAAS Interoperability flight demonstration was conducted on August 25. 2001 at Holloman AFB. New Mexico, A series of 16 approaches were flown to runway J6."

And of course, NASA...

Has had a working Remote Control system for big Boeings for over 20 years;

Supposed To Obtain Those Records From NASA Soon

They promised them by August but I'm patient!

; )

Here's an interesting link The raytheon victims are listed on the 911 flights

These are very important blogs & FOIAs because many people

have strongly suspected that some or all of the airliners were modified, or were even drones (as in Operation Northwoods of 45 years ago).

It would be particularly gruesome if any of the airliners contained passengers & crew and were taken over by remote-control & sent on a crash course. However, we must follow-up every lead & go wherever the evidence takes us.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

Beware the bait and switch...

At the moment I do not subscribe to the idea that the four airliners were flown by remote control, however, as most anything else, I am open to new information that will shape my opinion. But...

In all of this information starting back in 2001, I notice that there seems to be a trend to have researchers focus upon the future of remote control technologies using some GPS type navigation systems and that it was all still under development and incapable of such automated piloting and accurate navigation ON 9/11/2001. I think not.

Its my understanding that since the time of the advent of the B747, where Inertial Navigation Systems and Area Navigation Systems began their use, and then eventually moving into some GPS navigational systems which soon began to show up on the scene, there has been a steady advancement in choices, accuracy and reliability of navigation systems for enroute navigation needs and landing needs [which are commonly known as an ILS...Instrument Landing System]. I believe that fully automated landings can take place with the use of Category III landing systems which can be accomplished without any direct pilot input. Its also my understanding that there are several different types of enroute navigation systems that are commonly onboard modern airliners which serve as either back-ups, cross checkers, primary navigation systems, or a combination of them all.

Concurrent with such advancements in navigational systems, there has been an advancement in what used to be called the autopilot, and then the flight director, and I think now its called a flight management system which integrates navigation and aircraft flight characteristics and commands. Other professionals are far more familiar with such automated flight control systems, but its fair to say that there has been an equal advancement with this flight control automation thus matching advancements of the two elements...navigation, and flight management. The goal has been to make better and more efficient use of these symbiotic upgraded system's capabilities.

The third and separate element of this thread and these articles is the improved capacity for flying aircraft by remote control. Remote control of aircraft through the use of auto-pilots or flight directors, or flight management systems has obviously matched the same upgrades as have navigation and flight management systems. The NASA jet fuel gelling testing that I believe is shown here, happened decades ago and improvements didn't begin to take place after 9/11/2001.

Perhaps just another redherring put out there designed to stop the investigations into the possibility of the remote control take-over of the airliners, or conversely, designed to accomplish the opposite-to stimulate research, or thirdly, perhaps to build opposition within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The real issue on 9/11 is that, with the possible exception of AA77, the airliners were not flown by the professional pilots assigned those flights that day.

Another important issue regarding the remote OR, hijacker control and navigation of AA11 and UA175, is that in each case it can be argued that the instructions...aka...navigation information...had to go through the flight director or flight management systems in both circumstances...IE: IF the airliners were being controlled remotely, and most likely, IF they were being controlled by hijackers.

Its been fairly well established that "hand flying" AA11 and UA175 into the WTCs would be a very, very difficult task to accomplish.

The point that I wish to make here is that the navigation accuracy would not change with the use of EITHER form of control...remote. or "in-cockpit" navigational control. Stating it differently, if the airlners were remotely controlled, its unlikely that they would be flown with any higher levels of navigational accuracy than if not remotely controlled because the same flight directors would be used either way.

In the end, flight directors and sophisticated navigations systems get man from the earth to the moon and back with great accuracy, so certainly, some simpler variations of such command, control and navigation systems would be capable of navigationg these two airliners into the WTCs.

Robin Hordon


I hate to speculate as well, however decades have passed since introduction. Laser guidence could also inhance performance, or possible homing becons.
Like i tell all those people who are unaware. I am not trying to convince you. Just look.
My reply to the common ....Who,How , and Why?...........That's why we need a new independant invesitgation to answer the Who , How , and Why.

767 Remote Control? Easy as...

G'day Robin and others,

As you know I am qualified on the 767/200 in Avionics(all Auto Pilot and Navigation etc) and have made argument that remote control is not only possible but rather probable! This is speculation, I know, but with out it, the whole flight 11 and 175 events fall apart for me.

It is at the speeds seen it is near impossible for these aircraft to hit these narrow targets under pure manual control. It is also near impossible for the Auto Pilot to hit them also using Heading Mode or any Command Mode due to general inaccuracy of these systems etc. There is one Auto Pilot Manual Mode that would be able to pull this off which is CWS or Control Wheel Steering which is fitted to the 767. This mode enables a pilot to simply gradually adjust the attitude of the aircraft using the control column and once the correct attitude is achieved the Auto Pilot will then maintain it using the IRS Inertial Reference System and the Auto Flight Computers. I find this incredibly unlikely due to the fact someone still has to be their to make these adjustments and selections that wants to die.

Personally I have always thought that direct access to the FCC's Fight Control Computers via their digital busses(6 wires only per box) from an added analogue to digital receiver was the most likely. If a military grade GPS Beacon was also installed on the aircraft and that information was received by a remote computer system that could then command those FCC's(3 of, although 1 would do) using the same software that the FMC/Auto Flight System would normally use to control such. It would also be possible to use precision radar to track the plane instead of GPS, you would probably know more about this? There are many ways to achieve remote control, this is but one way, I prefer it as the FCC's directly control the hydraulic actuators that input into the ailerons and elevators, so there is less chance of the system failing. There is a problem though! The pilots can break out of this control on the 767 if they are alive? They could not control the aircraft very well, but could force it to miss it's intended target by pushing very hard on the column with "break out force" overriding the FCC's hydraulic control. For this to work the Pilots must not oppose the planes tradgectory so they must be incapacitated or more likely dead due to decompression, nerve gas etc etc etc?

The reception/knowledge of altitude information of the aircraft is of concern but I am sure the GPS beacon fitted(now with accurate altitude data available) could of had a pressure altitude sensor added, which we know now are capable of very high accuracy(+/-20ft) that could be increased by adjusting the figures to the local barometric pressure easily found out from weather information in NY so hitting the right floor would be possible.

Regards the installation of this system if the was the actual UA and AA 767 well it would require a few men a few hours as there are plenty of spare rack positions in the Main Equipment Centre for a new receiver and transmitter. The wiring could be done over night as a simple modification request to engineering for a future system with none the wiser. A simple explosive device or mechanical override could be installed to cause a decompression of the aircraft and the altitude warning system is easily disabled for decompression by simply disconnecting it, 20mins no problem. No testing, either confidence(crew) or maintenance is done during normal operation of this system. Obviously putting a few Nerve gas bottles into the three air-conditioning risers timed or radio controlled would kill all people on board within a few minutes or so, this gas is tasteless, odourless and colourless!

Remote control is very easily done if a landing is not required and to take out the crew is so simple that it would probably amaze people. Nerve gas disables the nervous system within a minute and unknown decompression will induce unnoticed hypoxia rapidly, this I believe is far less likely in case the crew picks up on it and uses the oxygen. Historically we know this does not happen and crews just go of into dreamland completely unaware it's happened.

Just some thoughts!

For me I need this to make sense of these events and so do many of the public in my experience.

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

They admitted to running "hijack" wargames

The Pentagon/NORAD was and admitted they were running aircraft in war game scenarios on 9/11.

It's not a stretch to speculate that the "hijacked" planes used as weapons on 9/11 were actually part of the war game scenario.

"I have an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs of Staff (Richard B. 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".
Mike Ruppert - June 5, 2004, editor of FTW

Were these live-fly planes being flown by live pilots or remote control?
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


"Were these live-fly planes being flown by live pilots or remote control?"

That's a good question!

Infowar Relay Stations:

Now, we tie that in with the fact that...

... in 1998, the Foreign Policy Advisory Team for the Bush Campaign, known as The Vulcans, were meeting and planning in George Shultz's home. Condi Rice, Cheney (sometimes), Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Dov S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz were all members of The Vulcans. Neo-cons all.

Dov is the one to watch for. He was head of SPC, a company that makes remote control systems for 757s among other things.

Not A Remotely Located Pilot But ...

But I suspect that each aircraft Flight Management System could easily have been modified for unstoppable auto-pilot operation upon the activation of an electronic relay as envisioned by at least one patent. The system envisions auto-pilot activation upon use of a pilot hijack notification system and of course all 4 planes were known to have not operated these systems, suggesting perhaps the existence of a relay that re-routed normal operation of these "panic" systems for implementation of an auto-pilot flight plan. A highly augmented GPS signal had been activated a year before 9/11 that could apparently have guided these aircraft into at least each WTC tower, which each were about as wide as a runway each.

In autopilot mode, B757 and B767 can virtually fly themselves. Augmented GPS guidance signals could practically convert them into virtual guided missiles. The "WAAS" GPS signal activated 13 months before 9/11 would enable an aircraft to accomplish a Category I precision runway approach, with proven placement accuracy within several meters laterally and vertically.

The 9/11 attacks were apparently part of a wider operation and I don't think that any perps would entrust the crucial flights to untrained and unmotivated stooges.

the real kicker

Your last point...

also... did anyone mention that all of these flights flew over US military installations on their way to targets..... errant planes do not fly over military installations.... no planes except those approved fly over major military installations. Although that would be a prime location to help guide a remotely controlled plane.
Together in Truth!

Interesting points!

Why use the FMC when you could go direct to the FCC's and use the FMC program or equivalent remotely. This would be a major modification to achieve this "unstoppable FMC" system as the interlocks on the Auto Pilot System are vast, requiring all those to be bypassed!

You must remove the crew from the equation as a single or multiple relays is completely impractical if not possible to do covertly, believe me! The wiring is too difficult and the crew could disengage the Auto Pilot in to many ways including simply pulling the circuit breakers, so this is a major post production modification.

You must get at the Hydraulic systems directly in my opinion by two twisted pairs of wires for roll, pitch as yaw(Rudder not required at this speed) sending command direct to the Flight Control Computers. This is an easy installation and the computers could be upgraded on the bench
quite easily!

You are right on the GPS and do you know what accuracy they hold in altitude? I believe they could do that job as well because the towers were so high that maintaining 4 satellites should not be a problem!

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Prefabricated Avionics?


What is your opinion of the plausibility of the use of prefabricated avionics (i.e.: a FMS) to prevent corrective tampering and bypass the extensive required tinkering for normal systems? Would any required relays for an "unstoppable" auto-pilot mode extend far beyond a flight deck avionics system?

Would remote access to a FMS be done via ACARS?

Would high speed auto-pilot mode approach (non-Control Wheel Steering) have been unlikely in your view even with the use of augmented GPS nav-aids? (WASS, LAAS) The WAAS signal has been shown to provide 1 meter accuracy laterally and 1.5 meters vertically. The towers were over 200 feet wide each. It seems that only extreme manuevers might be difficult to acheive.

Last but not least ...

Would you know where I could obtain any reference materials on B757/767 avionics or flight systems? Very hard to find otherwise it seems.


If GPS...

I would think there would have been a record of the GPS signals coming and going from each aircraft on there way to their targets.

Has anyone done a FOIA request on these records?

I assume they were destroyed, but that hasn't stopped us yet.

Infowar Relay Stations: