"9/11 Hijackers" R based on "cellphone" claims. Debunked.

[thatsmystory]

Another theory about the cell calls is the possibility that the planes were retrofitted with cell phone enabling technology. The possibility that planes were tampered with in advance of the attacks would not be something the government would want the public to know. Thus the FBI went with a confusing story of cell/airphone calls. IMO this theory is more plausible than the voice morphing theories.

Much easier to accomplish for sure.

1) If voice morphing was used then why would the content of the calls be suspicious? It doesn't make sense.

2) IMO one main reason people are suspicious of the calls is because of the secrecy/cover up. If the investigation had been more transparent and above board then I doubt there would be so much suspicion.

[psynapz]

Now according to Alice's theory above, Ms. Grandcolas was presumably surveilled by an Israeli telecom company, the managers of which then gave her 10 minute voice sample to the Mossad (or someone else), who then "cloned" her voice and developed an accurate facsimile with which to fool her sleeping husband once he awoke to find her fabricated "last words" on their answering machine

Why does every calling passenger have to have been a morphed fake call? It seems as though there were only a few key calls which needed to be placed in order to seed the story for each plane.

"Don't you believe me?"

Lauren Grandcolas... ticket had been issued for UA Flight 91, but she was early to the airport and was allowed to board an earlier flight, the doomed number 93.

Whoa that sooooooo sucks. I would be righteously pissed if one of my last thoughts in life were that insipid Alannis Morisette pooper about how she's never used a dictionary before.

Another theory about the cell calls is the possibility that the planes were retrofitted with cell phone enabling technology. The possibility that planes were tampered with in advance of the attacks would not be something the government would want the public to know. Thus the FBI went with a confusing story of cell/airphone calls. IMO this theory is more plausible than the voice morphing theories.

Very happy for you that you found an idea that actually fits inside your brain, but as Alice demonstrated, voice-morphing-on-demand technology, unlike the unreliable crapshoot of uselessness that which would constitute such a "cell/airphone retrofit" as in this hyopthesis of yours, is more plausible because it definitely exists and is operationally reliable, not dependent upon public cell coverage leaking upward high enough to catch some "retrofit" cell radio. If you can make a cell call from a plane, then you're not up very high, and you're just very, very lucky for the few seconds it works.

They were a little sloppy with this operation, but not that sloppy. Not where it really counted, and that includes tying up the official story. At least until Rummie blew it at that press conf.

Shot down indeed.


Oh, and come on Percy, semitism is as ugly as the inverse. Everybody here knows Israel is not "the Jews". Zionism is not "Israel". But the Mossad most certainly is "Zionism". Now, Zionism isn't exactly "the Conspiracy", but the Conspiracy most certainly includes Zionism in a not-insignificant way. Anyone who disagrees with these assertions is to be considered ignorant and dangerous.

[barracuda]

Now according to Alice's theory above, Ms. Grandcolas was presumably surveilled by an Israeli telecom company, the managers of which then gave her 10 minute voice sample to the Mossad (or someone else), who then "cloned" her voice and developed an accurate facsimile with which to fool her sleeping husband once he awoke to find her fabricated "last words" on their answering machine

Why does every calling passenger have to have been a morphed fake call?

Because if it can be shown that there was even a single call which was genuine, it mitigates the "no hijackers" argument, which, to my mind, streamlines the understanding of the day, at least somewhat.

Lauren Grandcolas... ticket had been issued for UA Flight 91, but she was early to the airport and was allowed to board an earlier flight, the doomed number 93.

Whoa that sooooooo sucks. I would be righteously pissed if one of my last thoughts in life were that insipid Alannis Morisette pooper about how she's never used a dictionary before.

It's actually a bit worse than that. Grandcolas was three months pregnant with her first child.

[Percival]

Now according to Alice's theory above, Ms. Grandcolas was presumably surveilled by an Israeli telecom company, the managers of which then gave her 10 minute voice sample to the Mossad (or someone else), who then "cloned" her voice and developed an accurate facsimile with which to fool her sleeping husband once he awoke to find her fabricated "last words" on their answering machine

Why does every calling passenger have to have been a morphed fake call? It seems as though there were only a few key calls which needed to be placed in order to seed the story for each plane.

"Don't you believe me?"

Lauren Grandcolas... ticket had been issued for UA Flight 91, but she was early to the airport and was allowed to board an earlier flight, the doomed number 93.

Whoa that sooooooo sucks. I would be righteously pissed if one of my last thoughts in life were that insipid Alannis Morisette pooper about how she's never used a dictionary before.

Another theory about the cell calls is the possibility that the planes were retrofitted with cell phone enabling technology. The possibility that planes were tampered with in advance of the attacks would not be something the government would want the public to know. Thus the FBI went with a confusing story of cell/airphone calls. IMO this theory is more plausible than the voice morphing theories.

Very happy for you that you found an idea that actually fits inside your brain, but as Alice demonstrated, voice-morphing-on-demand technology, unlike the unreliable crapshoot of uselessness that which would constitute such a "cell/airphone retrofit" as in this hyopthesis of yours, is more plausible because it definitely exists and is operationally reliable, not dependent upon public cell coverage leaking upward high enough to catch some "retrofit" cell radio. If you can make a cell call from a plane, then you're not up very high, and you're just very, very lucky for the few seconds it works.

They were a little sloppy with this operation, but not that sloppy. Not where it really counted, and that includes tying up the official story. At least until Rummie blew it at that press conf.

Shot down indeed.


Oh, and come on Percy, semitism is as ugly as the inverse. Everybody here knows Israel is not "the Jews". Zionism is not "Israel". But the Mossad most certainly is "Zionism". Now, Zionism isn't exactly "the Conspiracy", but the Conspiracy most certainly includes Zionism in a not-insignificant way. Anyone who disagrees with these assertions is to be considered ignorant and dangerous.

Hey I have no problem with that my friend, I simply see no evidence to suggest that Israel had anything to do with 9-11. Israel has to do what she has to do, there are millions of religious fanatics surrounding Israel who wish to do great harm to her. I dont agree with everything Israel does but I also dont agree with everything America or any other government does. As for zionism etc, who among us isnt enjoying a land that once belonged to someone else and was taken wrongly by force. Its a lame argument. The Jews needed a homeland and they have one, leave them alone.


IMO 9-11 is very simply explained:

There were pentagon terror drills taking place that day that were to involve hijacked planes. The 19 hijackers were in the employ of a faction within our govt and they were hired and paid to play the ROLE of hijacker during the drills. Once they were on board the drills began and they did what their handlers had trained them to do but the drill went live when the planes were taken over by ground based remote control. The 19 hijackers went to their death as surprised and doublecrossed as everyone else.

The phone calls, the truth movement, controlled demolition etc are all red herrings. This was a very simple straight forward operation.

[thatsmystory]

"Don't you believe me?"

Some suggest this comment proves morphing. Perhaps the morpher was up all night drinking beer and thus wasn't on his game early in the morning.

Very happy for you that you found an idea that actually fits inside your brain, but as Alice demonstrated, voice-morphing-on-demand technology, unlike the unreliable crapshoot of uselessness that which would constitute such a "cell/airphone retrofit" as in this hyopthesis of yours, is more plausible because it definitely exists and is operationally reliable, not dependent upon public cell coverage leaking upward high enough to catch some "retrofit" cell radio. If you can make a cell call from a plane, then you're not up very high, and you're just very, very lucky for the few seconds it works.

It wouldn't have used standard cell phone technology. For example:

The clearest indication yet that mobile phones and airplanes are getting into sync came in mid-September, when Airbus announced the successful completion of an in-flight trial of a personal mobile phone system. Airbus said the system, which relays signals from a picocell unit on the plane to a Globalstar satellite for distribution to ground-based GSM networks, will be ready for installation on commercial aircraft in early 2006.

On The Move: Coming to a plane near you? Cell louts

I looked into this years ago and found accounts of commercial research taking place in 2003. At the time I suggested that someone like DARPA could have had some sort of prototype in 2001. Unlike some of the adamant voice morphing theorists I have no problem admitting this theory is somewhat far fetched.

[thatsmystory]

IMO 9-11 is very simply explained:

There were pentagon terror drills taking place that day that were to involve hijacked planes. The 19 hijackers were in the employ of a faction within our govt and they were hired and paid to play the ROLE of hijacker during the drills. Once they were on board the drills began and they did what their handlers had trained them to do but the drill went live when the planes were taken over by ground based remote control. The 19 hijackers went to their death as surprised and doublecrossed as everyone else.

The phone calls, the truth movement, controlled demolition etc are all red herrings. This was a very simple straight forward operation.

So the planners of this drill had no worries about lawsuits? No worries about something going horribly wrong with a live drill on commercial airliners? Would all the traumatized passengers have simply laughed at having a good scare?

Here is an interesting interview with Red Unit members Steve Elson and Bogdan Dzakovic. They give the public a good understanding of the FAA's mentality.

Interview with Elson and Dzakovic

[jingofever]

Very happy for you that you found an idea that actually fits inside your brain, but as Alice demonstrated, voice-morphing-on-demand technology, unlike the unreliable crapshoot of uselessness that which would constitute such a "cell/airphone retrofit" as in this hyopthesis of yours, is more plausible because it definitely exists and is operationally reliable, not dependent upon public cell coverage leaking upward high enough to catch some "retrofit" cell radio.

George Papcun, the guy who invented the technology, doesn't think it is plausible. I don't know if he ever published that technical essay.

[barracuda]

The holes in the remote-controlled plane theories are big enough to fly a remote-controlled plane through.

[Percival]

The holes in the remote-controlled plane theories are big enough to fly a remote-controlled plane through.

That may be true but we can remote control commercial jets and have been able to since the early 90s. The technology is built in to the flight software.

I dont pretend to know what happened but since there is such a large Ron Paul fan club here at RI I am surprised more people dont agree with him that it was simply blowback from decades of bad mid east foreign policy.

[Nordic]

The holes in the remote-controlled plane theories are big enough to fly a remote-controlled plane through.

Like what?

Care to explain how a few amateur pilots, under extreme duress, were able to fly commercial aircraft, at full speed, with uncanny accuracy, into bullseyes with almost no room for error?

And how one of them was able to maneuver a jet in an incredible loop-de-loop and skim his jet just inches above the lawn of the Pentagon on its way to its target, again with pinpoint accuracy?

Now THAT's a silly story.

There's just no way these "pilots" could have done this. Absolutely none. Maybe one could have gotten lucky, but all three perfect? No.

[Nordic]

The holes in the remote-controlled plane theories are big enough to fly a remote-controlled plane through.

Like what?

Care to explain how a few amateur pilots, under extreme duress, were able to fly commercial aircraft, at full speed, with uncanny accuracy, into bullseyes with almost no room for error?

And how one of them was able to maneuver a jet in an incredible loop-de-loop and skim his jet just inches above the lawn of the Pentagon on its way to its target, again with pinpoint accuracy?

Now THAT's a silly story.

There's just no way these "pilots" could have done this. Absolutely none. Maybe one could have gotten lucky, but all three perfect? No.

Imagine driving a car at 600 miles an hour straight into a tiny garage door. With people screaming all around you, floating on the air, the wind blowing, etc. etc.

[barracuda]

Care to explain how a few amateur pilots, under extreme duress, were able to fly commercial aircraft, at full speed, with uncanny accuracy, into bullseyes with almost no room for error?

How do you know the qualifications of these pilots?

Who told you who they were, and why do you trust them to tell the truth?

Have you ever flown a plane yourself?

Why do you use the word "bullseye" to describe what were the largest manmade structures on earth when constructed?

What makes you think they were under extreme duress?

And how one of them was able to maneuver a jet in an incredible loop-de-loop and skim his jet just inches above the lawn of the Pentagon on its way to its target, again with pinpoint accuracy?

What do you really know about Hani Hanjour?

Who told you he was an amateur pilot, and why do you trust that assessment?

Why do you refer to the maneuver as a "loop the loop"?

Why would you use the word "pinpoint" to describe a structure the size of the Pentagon?

There's just no way these "pilots" could have done this. Absolutely none. Maybe one could have gotten lucky, but all three perfect? No.

But there were four planes, not three. And one didn't make it, right?

Imagine driving a car at 600 miles an hour straight into a tiny garage door. With people screaming all around you, floating on the air, the wind blowing, etc. etc.

Actually, the current absolute land speed record holder is the British designed ThrustSSC, a twin turbofan-powered car which achieved 763 miles per hour. So people can accomplish precisely the feat you imagine to be impossible, and literally dozens of people have in fact been surpassing 600 mph in a car, at full tilt, wind blowing, engines roaring, holding a dead straight course, since 1965.

What makes you think a remote control plane can respond instantly to the control of a remote operator?

What do you think the failure/crash rate is for Predator drones in the Afghan campaign?

Why did Flight 93 not complete the mission? Do you think the "revolt" story was just a fairy tale?

Do you think a pilot at the controls of an aircraft is unable to in anyway affect the plane's flight if it is under remote control?

Do you know if the planes used that day had electronic or mechanical controls?

These are just a few of the questions I'd throw out there off the top of my head in response to your response.

[Iroquois]

Barracuda, I'm going to offer my own answers to some of your key questions.

What makes you think they were under extreme duress?

I'm guessing empathy is not your strong suit. Just a guess.

Why would you use the word "pinpoint" to describe a structure the size of the Pentagon?

Some, myself included, believe that the target was not merely the Pentagon but that the particular offices that were hit and the angle that they were hit at were very deliberate. The same can be said of the two Twin Tower hits.

[Stuff about land speed records.]

Those were airliners. They were not designed for high speed maneuvers at extremely low altitudes.

What makes you think a remote control plane can respond instantly to the control of a remote operator?

Neither the controls in the cockpit nor a remote control device can cause a craft to respond instantly. Even the controls in a modern fighter jet have a roughly 0.1 second delay. No, I don't have source for that.

Do you think a pilot at the controls of an aircraft is unable to in anyway affect the plane's flight if it is under remote control?

Your question is too broad. But, it is possible for a remote control system to lock out the pilot and co-pilot controls in the cockpit.

Do you know if the planes used that day had electronic or mechanical controls?

They were sufficiently electronic to allow a remote control system to be grafted in that would have made a remote control scenario on 9/11 possible.

New autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible
Last updated at 22:52pm on 03.03.07

A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages.

The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets - and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.

Scientists at aircraft giant Boeing are testing the tamper-proof autopilot system which uses state-of-the-art computer and satellite technology.

It will be activated by the pilot flicking a simple switch or by pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck.

Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system. Currently, all autopilots are manually switched on and off at the discretion of pilots.

The so-called 'uninterruptible autopilot system' - patented secretly by Boeing in the US last week - will connect ground controllers and security services with the aircraft using radio waves and global satellite positioning systems.

After it has been activated, the aircraft will be capable of remote digital control from the ground, enabling operators to fly it like a sophisticated model plane, manoeuvring it vertically and laterally.

A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as 'autoland function'.

After it had landed, the aircraft's built-in autobrake would bring the plane safely to a halt on the runway.

Boeing insiders say the new anti-hijack kit could be fitted to airliners all over the world, including those in the UK, within the next three years.

The latest move to combat airline terrorists follows The Mail on Sunday's disclosure three weeks ago that scientists in Britain and Germany are developing a passenger-monitoring device.

This will use tiny cameras linked to specialist computers to record every twitch, blink, facial expression or suspicious movement made on board flights in order to identify potential terrorists.

A Boeing spokesman said : "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and efficiency of the world's airline fleet.

"There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons gaining access to the controls and threatening the safety of passengers.

"Once this system is initiated, no one on board is capable of controlling the flight, making it useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control."

URL:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387585-new-autopilot-will-make-another-911-impossible.do

[orz]

The holes in the remote-controlled plane theories are big enough to fly a remote-controlled plane through.

Indeed. The fact that radio control technology for planes exist does not mean that every plane has it, or that it could be secretly installed without the knowledge of the crew, mechanics etc etc.

I used to like the radio control theory until I read this -
http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

YEah i know 'urgh debunkers wahh wahhh ;____;' But seriously, if your opinion on the feasibility of the planes having been remote controlled is entirely based on 'oh yeahhh i guess they can remote control planes, I saw that crash test film nasa did' plus the process of elimination of other even more implausible scenarios then you should read this, it has a bunch of stuff about how planes actually work.

[barracuda]

Thanks, Iroquois, for your answers, even though we are far afield and off-topic of the OP (the two issues of faked calls and remote control do seem related, though). If anyone cares, we can stop, I guess.

Barracuda, I'm going to offer my own answers to some of your key questions.

What makes you think they were under extreme duress?

I'm guessing empathy is not your strong suit. Just a guess.

I'm a fairly feeling individual, I think. These questions are meant to elicit some thinking about presumptions, premises and assumptions that I think may go largely unexamined. For example, even if you accept that there were hijackers, and that they had trained for years for this moment, the state of their composure is an extremely difficult thing to assess. Military men of high quality in situations most of us would consider to be stressful beyond belief have been known throughout history to act with a clearheaded coolness in the heat of battle. Some people are built that way, others are trained into it. My empathy with others doesn't give me carte blache ability to accurately discern these men's unknowable states of mind in any way that is useful to the conversation.

Why would you use the word "pinpoint" to describe a structure the size of the Pentagon?

Some, myself included, believe that the target was not merely the Pentagon but that the particular offices that were hit and the angle that they were hit at were very deliberate. The same can be said of the two Twin Tower hits.

I have heard that supposition, but I think it may be an assumption that needs only be made in order to shoehorn the facts of the impact zones into an imposed narrative. The impact of Flight 175, which was obviously off-target, doesn't seem to validate that narrative in any helpful way.

[Stuff about land speed records.]

Those were airliners. They were not designed for high speed maneuvers at extremely low altitudes.

Neither Flight 11 nor Flight 175 evidence any sort of high speed manuevers, though. And the whatever the design specifications of the Flight 77 aircraft were, we now know, at least, that the plane's structure was capable of executing the maneuvers it performed without breaking apart.

What makes you think a remote control plane can respond instantly to the control of a remote operator?

Neither the controls in the cockpit nor a remote control device can cause a craft to respond instantly. Even the controls in a modern fighter jet have a roughly 0.1 second delay. No, I don't have source for that.

That's probably right. And the control lag for a state of the art remote drone can be as low as two or three seconds. Which leads me to believe the last-second course corrction shown by the pilot of flight 175 was probably hand-made while looking out the windsheild.

Do you think a pilot at the controls of an aircraft is unable to in anyway affect the plane's flight if it is under remote control?

Your question is too broad. But, it is possible for a remote control system to lock out the pilot and co-pilot controls in the cockpit.

But would that prevent an individual from disabling the aircraft in some way from the cockpit? I have my doubts.

Do you know if the planes used that day had electronic or mechanical controls?

They were sufficiently electronic to allow a remote control system to be grafted in that would have made a remote control scenario on 9/11 possible.

Maybe, if no one on board attempted to stop the planes, which again reduces us to an assessment of the improbable hypothetical circumstance of no one being n the cockpit at all. These Boeing 757s and 767s were equipt with hydraulic mechanical control systems, which makes the electronic takeover of the controls much more difficult.