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

[Iroquois]

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.

I don't believe I know of any incident in history sufficiently relevant to the topic at hand that would support your assertion that the alleged hijackers could have been operating with "clearheaded coolness", assuming the official narrative is true that they commandeered the planes with a combination of force and guile then turned them into weapons. Feel free to educate me.

The impact of Flight 175, which was obviously off-target, doesn't seem to validate that narrative in any helpful way.

Remote control would not guarantee direct hits. I do believe it would increase overall likelihood of each plane hitting its intended target on schedule despite a possible reduction in the quality of control over the aircraft verses that found in each aircraft's cockpit but nothing more.

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.

The last second course correction could have been made based on a camera view just as well as an out of cockpit view. The increased control loop delay that may be present in a remote control flight control system would increase the likelihood of this. But, I would expect these vehicles to be operated from a control station sufficiently nearby, either on the ground or in the air, to keep the delay well under one second.

But would [the patented Boeing uninterruptable remote control system] prevent an individual from disabling the aircraft in some way from the cockpit? I have my doubts.

It would not prevent sabotage period. If the passengers, crew, and/or the alleged hijackers felt that they need to bring the plane down, they didn't need access to the cockpit to do it. For 9/11 to have been successful, there would need to be a means to make that scenario unlikely.

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.

The type of actuators moving the control surfaces is completely irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is what is between the pilot and those actuators. In the case of the controls required to complete the flights in question, from the moment they were hijacked to their various terminations, they all went through a computer on board the aircraft. That computer could be rigged to block the controls from the cockpit and respond only to a remote control station.

[barracuda]

I don't believe I know of any incident in history sufficiently relevant to the topic at hand that would support your assertion that the alleged hijackers could have been operating with "clearheaded coolness", assuming the official narrative is true that they commandeered the planes with a combination of force and guile then turned them into weapons. Feel free to educate me.

I'm not really here to act as an educator, though I realise it may appear that way sometimes as a result of my didactic manner of writing and my ocassional pissy mien. Any number of military acts of cool headed heroism are documented all over the web or in history books; you might pay special attention to medal of honor reports given for pilots in World War 2, as these at least would conform to some aspects of flying a large aircraft under conditions of extreme duress and yet remaining sufficiently composed to save the day. If this doesn't satisfy, then you may consider yourself as possessed of the opinion that the man has never walked this earth capable of crashing an aircraft into an enemy position without losing his cool. I have a different opinion.

Remote control would not guarantee direct hits. I do believe it would increase overall likelihood of each plane hitting its intended target on schedule despite a possible reduction in the quality of control over the aircraft verses that found in each aircraft's cockpit but nothing more.

Then that one's a push.

The last second course correction could have been made based on a camera view just as well as an out of cockpit view. The increased control loop delay that may be present in a remote control flight control system would increase the likelihood of this. But, I would expect these vehicles to be operated from a control station sufficiently nearby, either on the ground or in the air, to keep the delay well under one second.

I agree it might have been made on a camera view, but I doubt it. If you watch the hit, the pilot in this case corrects severely at the last instant, less than a second from impact. For a remote pilot to have accomplished this would simply be much, much harder to do than from the yoke. Plus, if the fact that this manuever had to be attempted at all pretty much eliminates the possibility of any beacon planted on the target floor, the existence of which would have mitigated any such necessity.

Also, consider the eye witness account of Linda Shepley, who had an unobstructed view of Flight 93 before the crash. Whoever was in control of the plane was purposefully wobbling the wings right and left, perhaps to throw the passengers storming the cockpit off-balance.

It would not prevent sabotage period. If the passengers, crew, and/or the alleged hijackers felt that they need to bring the plane down, they didn't need access to the cockpit to do it. For 9/11 to have been successful, there would need to be a means to make that scenario unlikely.

This is extremely difficult to guarantee, impossible perhaps, and by attempting to you have vastly mulitplied the preparations for success and the avenues for failure.

The type of actuators moving the control surfaces is completely irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is what is between the pilot and those actuators. In the case of the controls required to complete the flights in question, from the moment they were hijacked to their various terminations, they all went through a computer on board the aircraft. That computer could be rigged to block the controls from the cockpit and respond only to a remote control station.

I don't think the accuator issue is irrelevant. Did you look over the .pdf file linked to by orz? It covers this issue meticulously, and discount the possiblity almost entirely.

[Nordic]

Oh please.

We're not talking about "remote control" per se, we're talking about programmable smart bombs, a la Tomahawk Missiles, which can be sent down a chimney with unerring accuracy.

My own father told me they could do this with jetliners long before 9/11, and my dad worked in that field, that's what his entire career was about.

We're not talking about a kid with a radio controlled airplane for god's sake.

And as far as "extreme duress", well gosh, someone behind the controls of a large jetliner that they've NEVER FLOWN BEFORE, who is ABOUT TO DIE, with a whole lot of people onboard the plane who all WANT TO KILL THEM, yeah, I'd assume that would be a case of "extreme duress".

Just the flying the plane part would make one's armpits get a little more sweaty than normal considering NONE OF THEM HAD ACTUALLY FLOWN ONE OF THOSE PLANES BEFORE.

And bullseyes? Fuck yes, they were bullseyes. Or did you forget:



Not a lot of room for error there. Ten feet to the left or right, very different ending to the story. Far less than the width of the plane itself.

Don't treat us like we're stupid, and don't BE stupid. Okay? Use some common sense.

No fucking way in a million years amateur pilots flew those planes into those buildings.

And you DO know, don't you, that flight 93 was shot down? There were pieces of that airplane spread out all over the fucking place. That's the one that got away from them, and some pilot decided he was gonna shoot it down, fuck what anybody else said.

[barracuda]

Sorry, dude. I disagree. But don't let me get in the way of everything you "know".

[thatsmystory]

And you DO know, don't you, that flight 93 was shot down? There were pieces of that airplane spread out all over the fucking place. That's the one that got away from them, and some pilot decided he was gonna shoot it down, fuck what anybody else said.

Flight 77 took off at 8:20 and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37. What explains the delay? Did it get away from them too?

How can anyone be certain as to what happened in light of the contradictory details? I agree with you that the hijacker pilots would have been under a lot of duress. One theory is that the actual hijacker pilots were skilled pilots and not the amateurs claimed by the US government. For example, some initial reports stated that Hanjour wasn't on the manifest. The call from flight attendant Renee May mentioned six hijackers. If so, who was the sixth person?

[Nordic]

Sorry, dude. I disagree. But don't let me get in the way of everything you "know".

Dude. You're smarter than that.

Your own examples are irrelevant. You hold that because some highly trained professional stunt driver can drive a car at 600 miles an hour across a salt flat means that an amateur pilot, who has never flown a big passenger jet before, can have the same kind of prowess?

Huh?

You say "What do you really know about Hani Hanjour?"

Nothing. I don't even know if he really existed or exists. And neither do you. But common sense dictates that it would take an experienced professional pilot to do what these planes did.

So if the planes were piloted by men, who were the men? Why would the people who planned and carried out that operation depend on men when they could turn the damn things into a Tomahawk missile and simply program them to hit EXACTLY where they wanted them to hit?

It doesn't even make any sense that they would use men to pilot the craft if they didn't have to. And they didn't have to!

Why does anyone assume any part of the "official story" is remotely true? We know it's a lie, so why retain any of it? You can throw the entire story out the window and use your common sense to figure out what MUST have happened. It's really not that difficult.

Do I think the "revolt" story was just a fairy tale? Of course it's a fairy tale. Do you actually believe it? Why would you believe it? It's such a "narrative".

This is just common sense, like the realization that they had to have written the "Patriot Act" before 9/11 even occurred. Because if you think about it, there's no way an 800 page legal document could even be TYPED, much less written, in the amount of time between 9/11 and when it was presented to Congress.

You just have to back off and look at it without any of the bullshit cluttering your mind.

Especially now, with the benefit of over 8 years of gradual emotional detachment, some things become really clear, like that stupid-ass CNN "news" cast from Saudi Arabia that Jaco asshole did. We look at that stuff now and think "I actually believed any of this clearly staged crap?"

[barracuda]

...arguing about whether or not there were "hijackers" on the plane is just plain silly.

Why all the emotional investment, then, in your insistence that your narrative is the correct one? How does "remote control" or "faked phone calls" change your relationship to the political repercussions of the false flag?

[lupercal]

How does "remote control" or "faked phone calls" change your relationship to the political repercussions of the false flag?

Good question. Hard to say how exactly, but it does. I think it has to do with realizing how nonchalantly a huge swath of US institutions and their executives lie to, endanger and murder US citizens. And lie about everything, because let's face it, everything about 911 is a lie.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Israel and Mossad definitely had starring roles, but the people who ran the operation used mostly fundie xians to carry it out. When you dig into 9/11 they are everywhere. Look at Flight 93, almost every member of the Let's Roll Team, who were also the one who made most of the phone calls, were all fundies, including Cee Cee and Ed Felt. From there it gets even better.

I'm not syre what you mean by that. Are you implying that CeeCee Lyles was part of the "team"? Because, like so much of this thread, that just sounds like the crazy to me.

.

I'm implying that fundie xians were recruited to carry out the attack. Some of them like Todd Beamer were active participants and while they might not have known about the whole story, they knew enough to do their part. Some of them may have been agents using false identities, other like Beamer may have been true believers who were willing to give their lives for the honor to be the first to die in the 'war of the 21st Century". I believe others like CeeCee were true believers who had no idea they were going to get killed that day but who selected for their evangelical beliefs and were 'rapture ready'. According to their version of the rapture, if they are holy enough, then day someone will tap them on the shoulder and tell them that it's time to go. I think that's why so many of them were people who weren't planning to fly that day and had made last minute plans to fly or switch flights that day.

CeeCee grew up in Fort Pierce and raised her sons on her own until she married Lorne in May 2000 and later moved to Fort Myers. Emulating her mother and aunts, she never took welfare, instead working two or three jobs while volunteering at Restoration House, a Christian women's shelter that two of her aunts founded in Fort Pierce.

"CeeCee was a role model, showing women they could make their own way without leeching off the system," said her aunt, Mareya Schneider. "In the last few years, she really dedicated herself to the Lord and she would use Scripture to explain that if you don't work, you don't eat."

I'm getting a feeling the general thrust of many of the folks on this thread is Israel remote-controlled the planes which seems like a weak footing. The main problem with remote-control as a point of departure here is that it is completely unproveable. Sheer confabulatory conjecture. Remote-controlled planes is a story someone made up, in all likelihood, first by Snake Plissken as the so-called "Flight Of The Bumble Planes"in Early 2002.

Another problem with remote-control is that it does not really flow quite as organically from the OP some people seem to feel, and the OP (no phone calls) is very, very weak in and of itself. If someone could take the time to outline just what they think happened with regard to the fraud of the calls in some organised procedural fashion, it would be helpful, because while Griffin's article puts some of the calls into question, it really doesn't explain much.

I have never been a proponent of remote controlled planes on 9/11. You don't need remote control when you've got willing participants.

In researching the people on the planes, I discovered that every plane had an extra pilot among the passengers. So every plane had three pilots on board. Of those, pilots were two Top Gunners and another one was a former Astronaut. Most of the pilots had combat experience. Of the 3 pilots on each plane, at least one was a fundie xian.

So if the cockpits had been breached, which I don't believe they were, there would still be one more experienced pilot on board who could have flown the plane, but according to the official fairytale, there is no mention of any passenger/pilots doing anything to help get the planes back under control. Especially on Flight 93, where supposedly the passengers did make it to the cockpit, the extra pilot should have been able to get the plane back under control.

[Iroquois]

Any number of military acts of cool headed heroism are documented all over the web or in history books; you might pay special attention to medal of honor reports given for pilots in World War 2, as these at least would conform to some aspects of flying a large aircraft under conditions of extreme duress and yet remaining sufficiently composed to save the day.

While any analogy that eliminates the dozens of innocent victims riding in the cabin seems woefully inadequate to me, one more apt than US pilots from WWII who received the medal of honor would be Kamikaze pilots from Japan, particularly those who used their planes as missiles without the benefit of prior air combat experience. But, vet or virgin, when death seemed imminent I would wager the flying abilities of all of them were compromised to some degree by their emotional states.

I agree it might have been made on a camera view, but I doubt it. If you watch the hit, the pilot in this case corrects severly at the last instant, less than a second from impact. For a remote pilot to have accomplished this would simply be much, much harder to do than from the yoke. Plus, if the fact that this manuever had to be attempted at all pretty much eliminates the possibility of any beacon planted on the target floor, the existence of which would mitigated any such necessity.

I agree that this seems to indicate that the plane was not guided to its target by a (radio) beacon. I would say that marking the target with an IR beacon or IR spotlight would fit either a remote control or cockpit control scenario however. And, the correction may have been made within the last second, but the impulse to do so may have begun many milliseconds before it occurred. That the correction had to be made at all is what makes me think RC.

Also, consider the eye witness account of Linda Shepley, who had an unobstructed view of Flight 93 before the crash. Whoever was in control of the plane was purposefully wobbling the wings right and left, perhaps to throw the passengers storming the cockpit off-balance.

That, to me, is the best argument yet for pilots in the cockpit being in control. But, maybe 93 was shot down because the RC failed. This whole theory RC is based on assumptions about who was in control of the events that day but otherwise weak on evidence. The same can be said for the counter arguments it seems.

I don't think the accuator issue is irrelevant. Did you look over the .pdf file linked to by orz? It covers this issue meticulously, and discount the possiblity almost entirely.

Ok, the implimentation of a non-interruptible remote control system on a 757/767 is non-trivial. I still say it would be the more reliable way to pull off the events of 9/11. The key would be either access to the planes or the ability to swap them out with duplicates. Perhaps this explains reports that some of these flights were not scheduled to fly on 9/11 or confusion as to which gate they took off from. It would also expand the number of people invovled. But, despite those major complications, I still lean toward RC as the more likely means to ensure the planes met their targets. Part of the significance of the war games happening that day is that the resources needed to overcome those complications would have been more readily put into play. And, much of the work of covering up the evidence later would be accomplished simply because the information would remain classified.

In researching the people on the planes, I discovered that every plane had an extra pilot among the passengers. So every plane had three pilots on board. Of those, pilots were two Top Gunners and another one was a former Astronaut. Most of the pilots had combat experience. Of the 3 pilots on each plane, at least one was a fundie xian.

This certainly lends some credibility to the more traditional view that the aircraft were piloted by people on board. One of the issues I had with the hijacker scenario was the lack of redundancy. What happens if your one or two trained pilots failed to make the flight, were injured in the process of taking control of the plane, etc?

[17breezes]

Not a lot of room for error there. Ten feet to the left or right, very different ending to the story. Far less than the width of the plane itself.

Width 0f WRC=208 feet

http://ouramerica.info/

Width of all runways at Logan = 100-150 feet

http://www.city-data.com/airports/Gener ... setts.html

flight 11 and 175 wingspan = 156 ft 1 in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

So lots of room to hit something even wider than the normal runway it lands on.

[Nordic]

Not a lot of room for error there. Ten feet to the left or right, very different ending to the story. Far less than the width of the plane itself.

Width 0f WRC=208 feet

http://ouramerica.info/

Width of all runways at Logan = 100-150 feet

http://www.city-data.com/airports/Gener ... setts.html

flight 11 and 175 wingspan = 156 ft 1 in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

So lots of room to hit something even wider than the normal runway it lands on.

Right. By professional trained pilots. Keep in mind that a plane coming in for a landing is going slower than the planes that hit the WTC. Plus, you can see the damn runway from far far away, and have plenty of time to line things up. Flying a couple hundred feet above the ground, toward a city, at full speed, in order to hit the side of a building that you can barely see until you're right on top of it? COMPLETELY different.

Please, people just use some common sense.

[nathan28]

...arguing about whether or not there were "hijackers" on the plane is just plain silly.

Why all the emotional investment, then, in your insistence that your narrative is the correct one? How does "remote control" or "faked phone calls" change your relationship to the political repercussions of the false flag?

I believe what barracuda is doing here is attempting to show that despite any vein of speculation you're still largely looking at the same damn problem. "Who" and "how" aren't nearly as important as "what" here. This is why IMO Peter Dale Scott's work is worth more than endless reams of speculation, because he has actually situated his complaint about 9/11 in a broader, more persistant political problem that will matter much more than 9/11. IOW, orz is right.

[Nordic]

...arguing about whether or not there were "hijackers" on the plane is just plain silly.

Why all the emotional investment, then, in your insistence that your narrative is the correct one? How does "remote control" or "faked phone calls" change your relationship to the political repercussions of the false flag?

I believe what barracuda is doing here is attempting to show that despite any vein of speculation you're still largely looking at the same damn problem. "Who" and "how" aren't nearly as important as "what" here.

Well, yes, you're quite right, in fact I'm breaking my own rule about arguing as to whether there were any hijackers or not. It really doesn't matter, it's actually irrelevant.

Although maybe I've argued myself out of my former position, because I think anyone studying this case should simply throwout, 100%, the official story and start completely over, without any prejudice as to what we think we know and what we've been told. If one does that, one draws some rather startling conclusions IMO.

I guess I'm just amazed that anyone would still think that some amateur pilots flew those planes so perfectly. To me that's like thinking I could have my seven year old son walk a tightrope without ever having done it before. Ludicrous.

But hey, whatever. We all seem in much agreement as far as the Big Picture.

[tazmic]

So lots of room to hit something even wider than the normal runway it lands on.

I thought most passenger plane landings were computer controlled these days anyway...

Although, the Virgin Pilot I chatted to at the back of the upper deck once (before he did his secret message thing to the cockpit, right in front of me, to let them know he was coming back, so they could open the door, and telling me, 'I better go back'...) said 'No, I always land 'em myself. I want to do my job not let some computer do it for me.' shortly followed by saying just how many wonderful systems kick in upon touchdown to keep the damn thing going in a straight line, heh.