Support 911Blogger


Remote In-Flight Course Changes Facilitated By 9/11 Model Aircraft Circa 2001

The capability to remotely transmit altered aircraft flight plan data via remote data link transmissions directly into Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft Flight Management Computers (FMCs) for use by aircraft auto-pilot functions, was technologically available circa 2001.

Developed in 1999 and technologically supported by the FANS-capable (Future Air Navigation System) Honeywell Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s by 2000, Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedure (DARP) technology enables aircraft course changes via modified flight plan waypoints remotely transmitted and installed into aircraft FMCs by VHF or SATCOM (satellite communications) transmission uplinks.

"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.']" [1]

A January, 2002 description of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s:

""AOC (airline operations center) data link is an optional feature of the Pegasus FMC. This feature provides data link communication of ... route modifications ... directly into the FMC (flight management computer)."[2]

A May, 2000, explanation of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s:

"A route request may either be a route modified by the crew, or a route which has been sent to the airplane from the Airline Data System."[3]

"The route can be sent by airline operations directly to the ATC Facility via AIDC, for example, for review and uplink to the aircraft."[4]

"At the time of the airworthiness approval of the 757/767 (Pegasus ‘00) FANS 1 FMC, the operational requirements ... for providing ... Dynamic Airborne Route Planning (DARP) based on FANS 1 communication capability were not determined."[5]

June, 2001:

"Dynamic rerouting (DARP) is not fully operational - Technology is available."[6]

The May, 2000, description of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s continues:

"Three independent VHF systems (radios and antennas) are installed on the airplane to provide line of sight voice and data communication."[7]

"Satellite communications (SATCOM) may be provided for remote communications where terrestrial contact is unavailable, or by airline policy regardless of the state of other communication capabilities."[8]

The May, 2000, description of the capabilities of the Pegasus Flight Management System (FMS) for Boeing 757s and 767s continues:

"The FMC has the capability to store 2 routes, designated as route 1 and route 2. The route which defines the flight plan along which the airplane is to be flown is the active route."[9]

A Federal Aviation Administration publication description of the capability to remotely modify active flight plans already being executed by certain aircraft Flight Management Systems:

"Planned Airborne Re-route Procedure – DARP (Data link Aircraft): AOC (airline operations center) will plan the re-route and uplink the route to the aircraft, commencing from the waypoint on the current route, ahead of the Aircraft and finishing at destination. Note: Some Flight Management Systems allow AOC uplinks to the Active Route. It is recommended that all AOC route uplinks are directed to the Inactive Route."[10]

Honeywell and Rockwell Collins flight management systems are common to the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft and certified for use in 1996 and 1998 and in 2000 via retrofit:

"The Honeywell "Pegasus" flight management system earned its first FAA certifications March on the Boeing 757, 767 ... Airlines get FANS-1/FANS-A capability ... FANS-1 ... allows operators to obtain more economical routings and to utilize satellite navigation."[11]

"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."[12]

"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."[13]

Boeing 757s and 767s containing such Flight Management Computers and Multi-mode Receivers, can precisely self-navigate entirely under augmented GPS-guided autopilot control, to destinations still out of sight and along routes that reportedly never vary more than 18 meters.

"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]

Augmented GPS service activated in August 2000 supports extremely narrow navigation corridors:

"Precise satellite-guided flight paths look like discrete pipelines ... never vary more than 18 meters - half the wingspan of a Boeing 737."[16]

Augmented GPS service (Wide Area Augmentation System or WAAS) activated in August, 2000 supports aircraft navigation corridors as narrow as 243 feet and a 95% rate of aircraft containment.

"August 24, 2000 - WASHINGTON, DC — After a successful 21-day stability test of the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signal in space, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) declared that it is now available."[17]

"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)."[18]

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.

RNP .02 / Boeing 767-200 / World Trade Center Tower

"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%."[19]

On May 1, 2000 - 16 months prior September 11, 2001 - President Clinton announced that intentionally introduced position and timing errors in GPS data (Selective Availability or SA) would end. SA was implemented to deter abuse of GPS in the national security interest.

"Today, I am pleased to announce that the United States will stop the intentional degradation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) signals available to the public beginning at midnight tonight. We call this degradation feature Selective Availability (SA). This will mean that civilian users of GPS will be able to pinpoint locations up to ten times more accurately than they do now ... My decision to discontinue SA was based upon a recommendation by the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Departments of State, Transportation, Commerce, the Director of Central Intelligence, and other Executive Branch Departments and Agencies.""[20]

References:

[1] FANS: Where Is It for Business Aviation?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=bca&id=news/FANS033.xml
[2] 767 Flight Deck and Avionics - January 2002, Page 123
http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/boeing/B767/misc/0001/
[3] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 41 (Boeing, May 12, 2000)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf
[4] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 41 (Boeing, May 12, 2000)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf
[5] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 3 (Boeing, May 12, 2000)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf
[6] FANS Implementation in South Pacific (June, 2001)
www.cena.fr/pages/1actu/atmrd/6lun18_06.pdf
[7] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 49 (Boeing, May 12, 2000)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf
[8] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 50 (Boeing, May 12, 2000)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf
[9] 757/767: Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2, Page 50 (Boeing, May 12, 2000)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/cwg/ats_dl/757-767_ATS_SRO.pdf
[10] THE TWENTY-SEVENTH MEETING OF THE INFORMAL PACIFIC ATC COORDINATING GROUP (November 2007)
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../documents/IPACG/IPACG27/WP11_DARP.doc
[11] HONEYWELL ANNOUNCES ORDERS FOR NEW-GENERATION "PEGASUS" FLIGHT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SEPT. 7, 1998)
http://www.aviationnow.com/shownews/farnday1/pressr15.htm
[12] Rockwell's Collins Landing System Picked for Both Airbus and Boeing Planes (September 6, 1996)
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18652301.html
[13] Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure (Boeing)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/sy/sy01/story.html
[14] Kent company bringing a navigation revolution
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003316294_naverus22.html
[15] Air China's First RNP Approach Into Linzhi Airport, Tibet
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id...
[16] A fuel-saving flight plan
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0807/gallery.copeland_naverus.fortune/index.html
[17] AMENDED VERSION: Wide Area Augmentation System Signal Now Available
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=5249
[18]UPS wins FAA certification for wide-area GPS receiver
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/01/07/159964/ups-wins-faa-certification-for-wide-area-gps-receiver.html
[19] RNP Capability of FANS 1 FMCS Equipped 757/767
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/caft/reference/documents/RNP757767.pdf
[20] STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE UNITED STATES' DECISION TO STOP DEGRADING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM ACCURACY
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/info/sans_SA/docs/statement.html

Aidan

You be da man !

Very interesting

Great work.

Override

If all four 9/11 aircraft were retrofitted with remote flight capability, this means that those four aircraft were not the aircraft we were told they were. Why? Because the perpetrators would want aircraft only they could remote pilot. If the four 9/11 aircraft were capable of being remote piloted, then the remote function could be overridden from another source.

This also raises the question: What aircraft did the passengers actually board?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

You're making huge assumptions.

>> If all four 9/11 aircraft were retrofitted with remote flight capability, this means that those four aircraft were not the aircraft we were told they were. Why? Because the perpetrators would want aircraft only they could remote pilot. If the four 9/11 aircraft were capable of being remote piloted, then the remote function could be overridden from another source.

You assume that they couldn't eliminate the possibility of manual override. If they're installing a remote piloting system for the purpose of guiding them into their targets there no reason why they couldn't make the override impossible.

>> This also raises the question: What aircraft did the passengers actually board?

Fail to see where you are going with this. Please elaborate.

Private Enterprise

Since it would be the airlines who would have retrofitted the aircraft, then override would be a concern of the perpetrators of the attacks, including the possibility of override from United Airlines' Special Operations Center, located at UA's operations base in Elk Grove, Illinois (I don't know what the setup for American Airlines was).

Now unlike the USSR, American commercial aircraft are not a part of the United States Air Force. Commercial airline companies are non-governmental enterprises, therefore remote guidance devices are installed by the airline in question, not the government.

If the four 9/11 aircraft were specialized aircraft manufactured/military retrofits, then they did not take off from Dulles, Logan or Newark. Therefore we ask the question: Onto what aircraft did the passengers get on on the morning of 9/11?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Logical error

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any remote control installed by covert operatives would grant access to anybody other than those covert operatives.

Security for such remote control by means of authentication and encryption is easily accomplished, just like communication with military satellites.

The fact that remote flight plan altering technology was available before 2001 only serves to underscore the feasibility of remote control, not to outline any exact scenario.

AP and BBC Misspeak

My last comment fits in rather nicely for me. Why? Because I was informed that Flight 93 did actually land at Cleveland Airport on the morning of 9/11, only that its flight number wasn't Flight 93 when it was in flight heading towards Cleveland. That is why when the passengers exited the aircraft, they never said they were on Flight 93. It was redesigned Flight 93 later. This is where the infamous AP article comes into play. Just as BBC reporter Jane Standley goofed by announcing the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed, AP also goofed by announcing that Flight 93 had landed! As they say, Best Laid Plans......

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

As far as I'm concerned

Flight 93 was either or shot out of the sky on the orders of Dick Cheney or it was shot out of the sky by elements of the military disobeying further stand down orders from Cheney's parallel command structure.

I'm not entirely rejecting any Northwoods scenario (especially not for AA 77), but this is my current working theory.

Evidence Agrees With Crash Of An Aircraft, But Which?

snowcrash, the same person who told me that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland also said it was shot out of the sky, so we're on the same page there!

Of course, with Flight 93 landing at Cleveland (and much, much earlier than the landing at Cleveland of Delta 1989 at 10:10 AM), that means those passengers that were supposed to board Flight 93 at Newark didn't! The question therefore is: What aircraft did those passengers board?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Flight 93 Aircraft Were Everywhere On 9/11!

Is there a time for the Flight 93/Camp David crash report, Joe?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Huh?

SnowCrash, tell us how covert operatives sneaked into the maintenance facilities for American Airlines and United Airlines and retrofitted the four 9/11 aircraft without being noticed?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

It ain't hard

You make it sound like it's hard. We had an investigative reporter here in the Netherlands gain access to the hangar where the Queen's plane resides, with a hidden camera on him. The laxness of the security was a big national scandal. He even managed to smuggle a mock bomb into Schiphol and onto an airliner bound for Cairo.

If it's that easy for a reporter to get to the Queen's plane, how easy would it have been for the government? WTC 7, spook HQ, was rigged for destruction. Highly sophisticated military energetic material was discovered in WTC dust, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that WTC 1 & 2's security was subverted. Also don't forget about this:

Other Contracts - Another of Stratesec’s biggest security contracts, between 1995 and 1998, is with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, providing electronic security for Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Its work includes maintaining the airfield access systems, the CCTV (closed circuit television) systems, and the electronic badging systems. American Airlines Flight 77—one of the planes hijacked on 9/11—takes off from Dulles.

I wonder about this though: was there any large scale retrofit of 767's as suggested in this article? Perhaps all that is required is installing a back door similar to what the Mossad did to FBI phone tapping systems. Remember: Raytheon's involved...

Re-reprogrammed NAV Computer; Out of Service

SnowCrash, certainly one can penetrate even high security areas and reprogram an aircraft’s NAV computer system. The problem still exists for the perpetrators, however. An aircraft's NAV computer can be re-reprogrammed!

The bastards who carried out 9/11 would need aircraft they could count on 100%. They would have to tear out the NAV hardware and replace it with hardware they could count on when the aircraft were in flight. And even then the bastards couldn't count on those surreptitiously retrofitted aircraft. Why? Because the retrofit might be spotted by an electrician doing repairs, the pilot/co-pilot notices something odd, or the aircraft has mechanical problems and is taken out of service!

The bastards would have to take into consideration a worse case scenario where surreptitiously retrofitted aircraft are Out of Service!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Good points

I agree. Especially with the unforeseen circumstances part. This has the potential to invalidate the entire remote control hypothesis, or at least make it unlikely, imho.

The maintenance logs would be interesting. Don't think we'll ever see them.

The Only Way To Be Certain.....

SnowCrash, even if all commercial aircraft were retrofitted with remote control capability, the bastards wouldn't have used commercial aircraft. The bastards would have used aircraft they could count on 100%...theirs!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Furthermore....

SnowCrash, the reason there is no CCTV of the 19 hijackers at Dulles, Logan and Newark, and no media interviews with airport personnel describing their impressions of the 19 hijackers, is because the 19 hijackers weren't at the airports, and the aircraft that crashed into the towers were not commercial aircraft.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Respectfully disagree on both counts

First: I've seen an interview with a airport ticket counter clerk describing his impression of Atta c.s. (The usual: "cold stare", unfriendly, etc. etc.) Which airport, I don't know.

I'd have to look it up, but I really don't know which OCT documentary it was. I haven't catalogued this stuff yet... :-( Maybe it's on History Commons as well.

Second, there is no evidence that any of the aircraft were anything other than commercial aircraft. The "pod" is only weakly supported, besides the vertical stabilizers seen in the picture from below didn't match the plane you hypothesized it might have been. (From what I remember from an earlier discussion we had, where me and you posted some photos)

.....To add: the body of a flight attendant was found in the rubble of the WTC, cuffed with plastic handcuffs....

If I were a planner on the inside, I'd prefer LIHOP, but since they decided to force what 767's couldn't accomplish, namely completely destroying the two towers, they would probably want to have some control over the planes. I'm also not ruling out that some of the hijackers were double agents participating in what they thought was a war game scenario. Maybe I'll have to concede one day that all of that was just a paranoid fantasy, since I simply don't have any hard evidence for it. All we know is that Ali Mohamed, Al Qaeda's tactical officer, was a triple agent.....that there were probably links to Al Qaeda up to 9/11 (Sibel Edmunds, Chossudovsky, etc.) and that Able Danger tracked these guys closely.

clarification

"I've seen an interview with a airport ticket counter clerk describing his impression of Atta c.s. (The usual: "cold stare", unfriendly, etc. etc.) Which airport, I don't know."

SnowCrash, the ticket guy is Michael Tuohey and he worked at the Portland Maine Airport. His video testimony is, of all places [;-)], on the "Inside 911" website of National Geographic.

Not Even In The Movies Would They Tell Such A Story

SnowCrash, that was at Portland, Maine's International Jetport, where Atta boards a 6 am flight so he can catch Flight 11 (the aircraft he is supposedly to pilot into WTC 1), which is scheduled to depart Newark at 8 am! This is so ludicrus, I don't know why Bush and Cheney aren't making little rocks out of big rocks at San Quentin!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Atta's bag (3 Different Stories)

First Atta's bag with all the incriminating information was reportedly found in the Nissan Altima at the airport in Portland, ME. Then reports stated that Atta's luggage was found in the Mitsubishi left at Logan Airport. Then finally it was in the bag that didn't get successfully boarded onto the plane. This contained the list of the 19 hijackers that still to this day make up the official story. The 19 hijackers who may or may not have been on airline passenger lists and who may or may not have been part of the plot. 3 contradictory accounts for the Rosetta Stone that doesn't make the flight..... and a 20th hijacker who was reported some 70 times by Agents, but was nevertheless shielded from arrest, to provide further "evidence" when his computer and documents were seized after-the-fact. Hollywood? Would you tell this story?

Thanks a lot

for the clarification, 911Peacenik... I guess this witness is meaningless, we need witnesses from Boston Logan. Are there any?

The Washington Post cites the 9/11 commission, which we all know is meaningless. Who is the actual person that "observed" the hijackers "asking for directions"?

Upon arrival at Logan, Atta and Alomari had to go through security a second time, which is usually unnecessary for connecting flights at most U.S. airports. Because of the way the Boston airport is configured, the hijackers arrived at Gate 9 in Terminal B but needed to cross a parking lot and were observed asking for directions to the gate where they boarded American Flight 11, according to the report.

...And where is the personnel at Boston Logan that saw them check in and board? I'm sure the names are a matter of public record?

Who checked in Atta?

"And where is the personnel at Boston Logan that saw them check in and board? I'm sure the names are a matter of public record?"

I've already tried to find this answer and strangely enough can't.
But here are some interesting details....

He was not running late to his connecting flight (flight 11), in fact witnesses report him hanging out at the coffee shop...

"3396 "Eyewitness sighting of Mohamed Atta at Coffee shop by American Airlines Gate at Logan Airport"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/fbi911timeline3.pdf

His bags according to this article are the only ones not loaded.....

"As it happens, Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn't make the flight, American sources confirm."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28904

He was flagged by CAPPS (Computer Assisted pre passenger screening)and guess what happens when you are flagged?......

"Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

But the 9/11 commission pretends that only applied at Portland where he was flagged but according to regulations his connecting flight applied just as much if not more....

"The FAA has determined that this proposed
requirement is necessary to prevent explosive devices concealed in
checked baggage transferred from earlier flights from being introduced into the holds of airplanes."
http://epic.org/privacy/faa/profile_NPRM.html

He had to get a boarding pass from the ticket agent in Boston because the one in Portland didn't give him one.....

"Michael Tuohey said...."I worked for US Airways, not American. So I just gave them a boarding pass from here to Boston."
http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent

Everyone knows this ticket agents name Michael Tuohey(the Portland agent)...why not the one who can confirm Atta got on board in Boston?

"The same as CNN, Good Morning America, a National Geographic documentary crew, and Oprah. They all came calling after his name appeared in declassified documents following the release of The 9/11 Commission Report."
http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent

According to him, she "killed herself" ......
"Oprah Winfrey, with Tuohey as her studio guest, told 20 million viewers that a woman who'd worked at American Airlines in Boston had later killed herself. Earlier, Oprah's producer had told Tuohey she had a message from the woman's husband: "It's not your fault."
http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent

According to AA spokeman that isn't true....
"ABCs Nightline called today asking about a rumor that an American Airlines agent in Boston had checked in Mohamed Atta and then killed herself later out of guilt........
However, I can tell you that the American Airlines agent who checked in Mohamed Atta is alive.
Tim Wagner
Spokesman
American Airlines"
http://www.blogpi.net/myth-busted-oprah-winfrey-and-the-911-ticket-agent...

But their name is a secret. I've never found it.

Being There

In other words, we have to take as faith that Atta was at Logan Airport, for we have zero names of witnesses whom we are told saw him there!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Ricochet Effect

SnowCrash, elements in our government certainly were tracking the upcoming 9/11 attacks. What they were tracking, however, was an American operation!

Sibel Edmonds recounts listening to one of our agent's intercepts from Iran who by April 1, 2001 affirmed all the major points of the 9/11 attacks (targets, use of aircraft, general time period for attacks, etc.).

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Yeah

This is a possibility. But many foreign players including foreign intelligence services were involved, so I wouldn't call it exclusively "American".

I do believe that some if not most of the hijackers were real terrorists with real assignments, but ended up being patsies. In the same vein, I don't believe LHO was innocent either, but his function was peripheral, not central. This just in..

I think this is a good example of this game of puppets and puppeteers, terrorists and their financiers.

Body of Evidence

SnowCrash says, ".....To add: the body of a flight attendant was found in the rubble of the WTC, cuffed with plastic handcuffs...."

Ever hear of planted evidence? Interesting that that flight attendant's body was intact and not atomized as most bodies were!

As for the pictures of Flight 175's underside, well, let's forget the Pod and the other underbelly anomalies I pointed to. What are those two dark round areas doing under the tail section? To me they again suggest an Air Force fuel tanker. The smaller dark round area is the bubble window the refueling operator looks out of, while the larger dark round area is where the refueling boom extends from:

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/rebuttals.html

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

The photo at the bottom of your link

Shows a plane strikingly similar to a United Airlines aircraft. I've uploaded it to my photobucket account. Theoretically, it could be painted substitute, but I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here and say this is UA 175, possibly remotely controlled to assure perfect final approach in its final moments.

wtc 2,flight ua 175,9/11,wtc impact study

Achimspok is the up and coming genius of 9/11 research: (Ignore the spelling errors, Achimspok is German, English is not his native language)

See his video:

And read the discussion.

NIST may have been caught lying again.

Hole In Two

SnowCrash, I'm only interested in those two round holes under the tail of Flight 175. Commercial airliners don't have them.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I really see a commercial 767...

(Click to open enlarged version)

flight ua 175,wtc 2,wtc impact study

Flight 175 Digital Analysis Reassessment

SnowCrash, I was going to do an article on Flight 75 based on the University Schools' digital analysis, but upon further research into the digital analysis it occurred to me that the comparison aircraft used wasn't an American Airline aircraft with the distinctive white stripes that run down the underside of the fuselage.

I still think, however, that the Carmen Taylor picture of Flight 175's underside shows objects that are in relief, but that is what my eyes see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

maintenance logs

"The maintenance logs would be interesting. Don't think we'll ever see them."

I would like to see those as well.

Who remembers the details...

about all or some of the planes being still in service or not being retired years after 9/11?

VERY STRANGE 9.11 AIRCRAFT

VERY STRANGE 9.11 AIRCRAFT REGISTRATIONS

Posted By: RMNewsMailbag
Date: Wednesday, 5-Jul-2006 15:38:55 Here are some very strange findings regarding the paper-fate of the four aircraft that went "missing" on 9/11. The following info is copied directly from www.planecrashinfo.com . You're free to verify the data yourself if you want to do the homework. I did...

11 Sep 2001 New York City, New York

United Air Lines
Boeing B-767-222
N612UA 65/65
11 Sep 2001 New York City, New York

American Airlines
Boeing 767-223ER
N334AA 92/92
11 Sep 2001 Arlington, Virginia.

American Airlines
Boeing B-757-223
N644AA 64/64
11 Sep 2001 Shanksville, Pennsylvania

United Air Lines
Boeing B-757-222
N591UA 44/44

It shows the four flights of 9/11, including tail numbers and crash information on the links. The information below is copied directly from the Federal Aviation Administration's N-number registry

The first plane listed is American Airlines Flight 11, tail number N334AA,
which crashed into the WTC North Tower. Note reason for cancellation, and
cancel date.

FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results

---------------------------------

N334AA is Deregistered

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 22332 Type Registration
Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date
01/06/2000 Model 767-223 Mode S Code 50722254 Year
Manufacturer 1987 Cancel Date 01/14/2002 Reason for
Cancellation Destroyed Exported To

Next is American Flight 77, tail number N644AA, which hit the Pentagon.
Please note the same details, reason for cancellation and cancellation date.

FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results

---------------------------------

N644AA is Deregistered

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 24602 Type Registration
Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date
05/08/1991 Model 757-223 Mode S Code 52072030 Year
Manufacturer 1991 Cancel Date 01/14/2002 Reason for
Cancellation Destroyed Exported To

Next is United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, which hit the South Tower
of the WTC. Please note the same details.

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 21873 Type Registration
Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date
01/18/1984 Model 767-222 Mode S Code 51773757 Year
Manufacturer 1983 Cancel Date 09/28/2005 Reason for
Cancellation Cancelled Exported To

Hmmm. What? Cancelled registration on 9/28/05? Not destroyed and
deregisterd in early 2002? What about the last flight, United Flight 93,
tail number N591UA, the one that allegedly crashed near Shanksville,
Pennsylvania.

Deregistered Aircraft 1 of 1

Aircraft Description
Serial Number 28142 Type Registration
Corporation Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date
07/01/1996 Model 757-222 Mode S Code 51721341 Year
Manufacturer 1996 Cancel Date 09/28/2005 Reason for
Cancellation Cancelled Exported To

Huh? Cancelled? On the same date in 2005? Not destroyed and cancelled
in early 2002?

How can American Airlines flights show the planes destroyed and the registration cancelled, while both United flights show the planes as simply being cancelled without explanation 4 years after they allegedly were destroyed? Why?

What the heck is going on here? These are public records, accessible by everyone until their purge date is reached. That is Nov. 11, 2006 for both United flights. There is no purge date listed for the two American Airlines flights.

Why would a company keep two aircraft that had been destroyed on its active lineup for four years, and then simply list the registration as "Cancelled"?

Thanks for locating this

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

Need a 767, remote controlled...

...with nice grey paint job, holds lots of fuel, from a fellow who is always ready to help? Just call Dov Zakheim. Google that!...for hours of fun.

And check this: http://100777.com/node/1836

KMW

Tender Mercies

In an earlier posting I said:

"The bastards who carried out 9/11 would need aircraft they could count on 100%. They would have to tear out the NAV hardware and replace it with hardware they could count on when the aircraft were in flight. And even then the bastards couldn't count on those surreptitiously retrofitted aircraft. Why? Because the retrofit might be spotted by an electrician doing repairs, the pilot/co-pilot notices something odd, or the aircraft has mechanical problems and is taken out of service!

The bastards would have to take into consideration a worse case scenario where surreptitiously retrofitted aircraft are Out of Service!"

Let's now take this argument to its logical conclusion:

An operation such as took place on September 11, 2001 would require equipment (in this case the four aircraft) that could be counted on, and not fall subject to the mercy of flight cancellations, aircraft mechanical troubles, delay in flight departure due to an ill passenger, a boisterous passenger, etc. In other words, unforeseen events that the bastards who carried out the 9/11 attacks could not control for.

This is why the four aircraft that were used on the morning of 9/11 did not take off from commercial airports. Those aircraft were specialized aircraft that took off from airfields that could be counted on to not have cancellations/delay in departures, etc.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Nice piece of work Aidan.

I have been a "remote controller" since day 1. To me it is inconceivable that the planners of The Big Wedding would leave the most critical phase of the overall operation--that those aircraft hit their targets accurately and on time, to an incompetent patsy like Hani Hanjour. That simply would not be permitted. You want those aircraft flown with the highest level of precision possible with existing technology. A drug-addled loser basket-case like Hanjour would not have been let anywhere near the controls of that aircraft. Having said that...I still think the wrong tower was hit first. But thats a whole other matter.

KMW

This may be here or nowhere, but one of AIG's

companies owned the largest fleet of airplanes in the World, during 9.11

Were the hijackers' names on the passenger lists....

or not? As I understand it, the hijackers' names do not appear on any of the flight manifests released by the airlines. However they purportedly do appear on lists the FBI provided as evidence in the ZM trial of 2006. (according to poor quality photos). Is this correct?

Manifests never actually released

As I've heard this explained before (I believe in an article by Elias Davidsson, a 9/11 activist from Iceland), actual flight manifests have never been released from any of the airlines regarding any of the flights implicated on 9/11. What were released were victims lists--and the absence of Arab names on those lists has been explained as the result of not wishing to dignify the alleged perpetrators of the murderous plot by classifying them as 'victims' (and also, conversely, of not wishing to dishonor the victims by having their names share space on a list with those of their alleged killers).

Then in the Moussaoui trial, the prosecutors submitted a document detailing information which the FBI said it had derived from the manifest from one of the flights. But obviously, the FBI's saying 'we've seen the manifest for this flight, and this is what it says' isn't the same as having the actual, authenticated flight manifest released to the public for all of us to see.

VERY STRANGE 9.11 AIRCRAFT

deleted

A few points and questions...

It seems to me that Aidan, through his continuous research and ensuing presentations is inching us closer and closer to understanding both how such precise flying could have been executed by "someone on board", or his second possible point...by "someone NOT on board".

This is, as usual, extraordinary work on Aidan's part and I feel that he has drawn no conclusions about what has happened.

Perhaps I'm misreading Aidan's latest here, but to me, he has only made the points that extremely precise navigation systems, and their integration with on-board "flight management-auto pilot-flight director" systems were available on 9/11/2001 and that...

...there were ground based capabilities that could, through either FAA channels or airline company channels, transmit updated or altered routes to individual airliners already airbourne at the time, and further that...

.,..these instructions could direct, instruct or be on the ready for the on-board flight management systems provided by Boeing and various avionic manufacturers to update or replace existing routing already entered into the flight management systems which could "reroute" the airliner along a path chosen by someone on the ground and not the pilot.

I am not sure if Aidan is stating that this capability, other than being able to transmit new routing to airbourne airliners from the ground, would, without approvals by the captains of the said airliners, take over "command or control" of the routing of any specific airliner...but that...

...the capacities to circumvent the captain's "command and control" responsibilities may have indeed been in place to do so.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

I think that such capabilities in B757 and B767 airliners have been exposed before in that there were some similar ground based flight management system control capabilities built into these Boeings as standard elements of these airliners. If I remember correctly, a few European airlines removed, or had Boeing remove such capabilities in the B757 and B767 aircraft that they purchased.

Again, please correct me if I'm off base here, but Aidan seems to be refining our knowledge of such systems and informing us that some of the ground based and onboard apparatus needed to operate this network of the rerouting of airbourne airliners was in place in some forms anyway.

Presuming that my conclusions above are correct, and even if not correct, I have a few questions and points that I have concerns about:

1. It is my understanding that:

...the captains of any and all aircraft have final say and full authority and responsibility for all aspects of the flight of their aircraft from push-back to disembarkment at the destination and that this includes selecting, approving and acuating any and all routings that meet his or her approval, and further that...

...regardless of the source of such routing, be it the original flight plan routing filed into the FAA computer systems by the airline, or the flight crew, or, be it routing assigned by Air Traffic Control, that such changes MUST be accepted by the captain before any modifications to the route are actuated.

From my Air Traffic Control and piloting views, even if the FAA's Air Traffic Controllers directly instruct an aircraft to make flight path adjustments of speed, altitude or routings, such instructions must FIRST be accepted by the captain before they are actuated because he or she must maintain the safety of their aircraft, and further that...

...if ANY instruction by Air Traffic Control puts the aircraft in jeopardy, or near an unsafe condition, the captain has responsibility to override such instructions to keep the aircraft flying or taxiing safely. In such cases alternative instructions would be requested until suitable flight path modifications to the specific aircraft would be accepted by the captain and thusly, agreed upon by all parties concerned.

My point is that the captain of an aircraft has final authority for operating that aircraft and that, at least from what I still understand, no other outside influence or entity has been given the authority to override the captains role of being responsible for ALL aspects of flight of his or her aircraft.

This does not mean that the technical capabilities for such "overriding" of the captains command and control of his or her aircraft might not have existed on 9/11/2001.

The question that is begged here is: "Were all four airliners remotely controlled from the ground on 9/11/2001?" And its a very good question because as Aidan has taught us all:

...the FAA's navigational capabilities for such accurate flight existed on 9/11/2001, and further that...

...the onboard flight director-autopilot-flight management systems were capable of automatically flying any programmed routing and speed and altitudes input into the above mentioned flight control systems, and further that...

...it appears that there was in place on 9/11/2001, a ground based communications system regarding the modification of an airliner's routing or perhaps other flight profile modifications that could possibly be used to by-pass the command and control of the captain's authority and responsibility for that aircraft's flight.

So, whether this happened or not is still an ongoing search for facts supporting or detracting from this possibility.

One element of such a remote controlled "by-pass" of the captain's command and control responsibilities that needs to be reminded is that if such "remote control" did indeed take place, all on board communications systems available to pilots and other crew members would also have to have been inhibited because...

...the pilots would be very, very unhappy campers if dsomebody else began to fly their aircraft in spite of their own commands and controls of the aircraft, and further that...

...clearly the pilots would use any and all means of external communications to make loud complaint about loosing such command and control and would undoubtedly ask anyone who would listen what was going on and how could they regain control of their aircraft.

In other words, the pilots would not go down quietly, or without doing everything imaginable and in theor powers to regain control of their aircraft...and they would give whomever might be listening a blow-by-blow description of their travails all the way to impact.

Sobering stuff here, but its a truth taht needs to be considered by all...and of course, no such complaints were ever heard from the pilots of any of the airliners in question.

Another point in need of reminder:

Just because there were some radio transmissions with odd sounding accents and odd sounding communications seemingly directed towards the passengers on board the airliners about bombs and remaining in seat and returning to the airport etc., does NOT mean that such radio transmissions came from the specific airliners in question. The place of origin of such radio transmissions is IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE and the facts are that any aircraft, or airbourmne command, control and communications center such as an E4B that was aloft within a hundred miles or so of NYC could have easily made such rado transmissions.

It is no more than presumption or an educated GUESS that these radio transmissions came from the specific airliners in question.

So, IF command and control of the airliners was taken over by some remote control apparatus, AND, the onboard communications systems were inhibited, there IS another source for the radio transmissions that we are all familiar with.

Additionally, regarding the War Games taking place in the northeast section of the USofA on 9/11/2001, there was an ALTRV in place in some of the airspace over parts of the northeast on 9/11/2001. So, this military "playground in the sky" could have secretively contained any number of aircraft serving a variety of purposes in participating in, or being part of, or overseeing/monitoring of the War Game activities on 9/11/2001.

And ALTRV is an "ALT itude R eser V ation" approved by the FAA for whatever use the Military may have for the airspace in question...it works like this:

If the Military has War Games planned for a particular region and time period, it has a need to SECRETLY fly some of its aviation assets to and from the "hot areas of attack-defense-or discovery" built into the various War Games Scenarios.

In order to keep the War Games legitimately a "surprise" for the various attack-defender elements, the military aviation assets MUST NOT be tracked by the FAA's Air Traffic Control systems because an alert NORAD tech could tip off one of the War Games units involved in the excercises.

The problem is that the Military bases from which and to which participating Military aviation assets must depart from and eventually return to, are often in and around busy civilian air corridors and the FAA MUST be in control of the Military aviation assets in order to "weave them" up and away into the War Games regions. So there is a problem...how to do both.

An ALTRV is an altitude block of airspace over an ENTIRE REGION [or specific parts of a region] and NOT just some specific Jet Airways [J-routes] used by FAA controlled aircraft...and...the ALTRV, in addition to having a wide swath of geographic area, has full use of a VERTICAL block of airpace within that specific geographical area. A typical ALTRV altitude block would be from Flight Level 310 to Flight level 490...or...FL310-FL490...or...from 31,000 feet to 49,000 feet.

The ONLY aircraft allowed within this airspace are Military assets which have an IFF or military transponder which the FAA radar systems cannot see, or are inhinited from seeing. This allows for the required secrecy needed to operate War Games.

Hopefully I have described the ALTRV...aka...a "Military Playground in the Skies" well enough so that you all can see that an ALTRV essentially "takes back" a vast region and altitude block of airspace from the FAA and it does whatever it wants with whatever Military aviation assets that it desires to use such a playground.

All civilian aircraft wishing to operate in the ALTRV regions within the ALTRV altitude blocks are NOT ALLOWED to use this airspace and are kept below the ALTRV or are routed around or beyond the geographical boundaries of the ALTRV.

So, here is how it works:

...a military asset departs a Military base and is under FAA aAir Traffic Control procedures...

...the simplified route of this flight ends, [or is interrupted] at a pre-arranged geographical point within the ALTRV geographical boundaries...

...the Military aviation asset is worked through civilian aircraft as a normal flight but is kept BELOW the bottom altitude of the ALTRV...in this case the ALTRV bottom level is FL310 so the Military aviation asset is climbed only to FL290 which is safely BELOW the ALTRV...

...as the Military aviation asset approaches the predetermined geographical point within the ALTRV, the FAA Air Traffic Controllers reach out to the appropraite NORAD facility and more specifiaclly, the particular sector or radar tech position within the NORAD facility, and begins to "hand-off" or identify this Military Aviation asset to that person in the NORAD facility...

[FYI...the Military aviation asset has both an FAA transponder and an IFF or Military transponder that are "squawking" or transmitting specifically assigned codes. This allows NORAD, who can see BOTH transponder codes, to "see" the Military asset. However, again, the FAA radar does NOT see this military IFF [Identification-Friend or Foe] transponder code. ]

...once the hand-off and military radio frequency change have been accomplished, the NORAD facility climbs the Military aviation asset up above FL290 and into the ALTRV block of airspace between FL310-FL490 in this example...

...and, once at or above FL310, the Military aviation asset TURNS OFF the FAA transponder and drops from the sight of all FAA radars...so it appears to the FAA's ATCs that the target basically "dissappears...

...from this point on, and up until there is a return to base, ALL the Military aviation assests are operating undetected by the FAA but seen by the appropriate NORAD sectrors designed within the specific War Game or War Games...

...so they can play in their "airspace playground" in any way that they need to beacuse the only aircraft within the ALTRV are Military assets...and the FAA has not a single clue as to who is where, what types of Military assets are operating within the ALTRV...nor what types of routings are being flown by the Military aviation assets...

Recovery, or return to base, of Military assets operates in the eaxct opposite steps as noted above. And when the Military aviation asset returns to base and begins to be handed-off to the pre-arranged FAA Air Traffic Control sector controller, the NORAD sector radar tech has the Military aviation asset squawk the specific pre-coordibnated transponder code on its FAA transponder and subsequently, the Military aviation assets "pops up" on the FAA radar scopes...the hand-off is completed...and the FAA ATC descends theMilitary asset down below the ALTRV.

In conclusion about ALTRVs...

Hopefully you all can see that if there is a War Game activity taking place in the upper midwest, and Military aviation assets are needed to play the War Games, the Military aviation assets are all eventually worked into the ALTRVs set up where needed across the country...and conversely, worked back out of the ALTRVs on their return to base.

In conclusion about the radio transmissions that are "alleged" to have been made by occupants in the afflicted airliners...the radio transmisssions could have come from any Military aviation asset operating anywhere within the ALTRV that was in place over parts of the northeast on 9/11/2001.

So, if there was a: "9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" as I feel comfortable in so identifying...[one that Cheney was most likely a player in]...one element of such a scenario could be the radio transmissions that are PRESUMED to be from the airliners in question, they easily could have come from any Military aviation assets operating in the ALTRV in place over large parts of the northeast on 9/11...piece of Miltary War Games Cake...normal War Game ops...part of all War Games "hijacking scenarios"...done all the time...completely normal...not out of the ordinary...expected actions by War Game techs...normal day at NORAD...innocent looking compartmentalization of actions on a terrible day...

I've dumped too much stuff here to go back and check my grammar and spelling...so please deal with it...you should get the drift here.

And the BIG DRIFT is that Aidan is doing great work in discovery and education about the four flights on 9/11.

thanks Aidan...

love, peace and progress...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

...

Captain's Final Say

Robin,

as I mentioned yesterday, an operation such as took place on September 11, 2001 would require equipment (in this case the four aircraft) that could be counted on, and not fall subject to the mercy of flight cancellations, aircraft mechanical troubles, delay in flight departure due to an ill passenger, a boisterous passenger, etc. The bastards who carried out the 9/11 attacks could not control these unforeseen events if they used Logan, Dulles or Newark airports.

This is why the four aircraft that were used on the morning of 9/11 did not take off from commercial airports. Those aircraft were specialized aircraft that took off from airfields that could be counted on to not have cancellations/delay in departures, etc.

The above nicely explains why there would be no need for "...the captains of any and all aircraft [to] have final say and full authority and responsibility for all aspects of the flight..."

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC