| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Remote-controlled Jets? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 18 2008, 03:57 PM (1,435 Views) | |
| kwb1965 | Feb 18 2008, 03:57 PM Post #1 |
|
Does anybody have any links to info on the assertion that it was remote-controlled planes that flew into the Twin Towers? I first heard this assertion from Alex Jones three or four years ago, and read it again recently in Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon." I don't think there's any way that the purported Al Qaeda hijackers could've had the skill to fly those jetliners. |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Feb 18 2008, 05:30 PM Post #2 |
![]()
|
The technology was available and being used in 1984 by NASA. - http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html |
![]() |
|
| Robert Rice | Feb 18 2008, 11:41 PM Post #3 |
|
South Tower Plane Was A Military Drone Aircraft http://letsrollforums.com/south-tower-plane-military-t16589.html |
![]() |
|
| Crikey | Feb 23 2008, 07:58 PM Post #4 |
![]()
|
This has always driven me crazy. If it was remote controlled aircraft that crashed into the Towers(which is completely plausible), what the hell happened to the supposed passengers? Did they "never exist"?
That's a little too far fetched even for me. |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Feb 23 2008, 08:19 PM Post #5 |
![]()
|
2 words... Operation Northwoods. Google it. |
![]() |
|
| Crikey | Feb 23 2008, 08:51 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
I'm aware of Northwoods. Feel free to call me slow but to my knowledge nothing on the Net concerning Northwoods mentions anything of the would be "victims", care to explain what you mean? |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Feb 24 2008, 09:46 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
It is good that you are aware of Operation Northwoods, reread "annex to appendex to enclosure A" page 10 . With the above in mind, check the background of the victims on the flights which crashed on 9/11... Do a stastical study of the occupations of the victims... The deeper you dig here the more intriguing it gets, for me anyway. Also check out the statistics of those victims families compensation. ( the above is all available via government and MSM website sources, you just need to dig to find the specfic info ) Let me know if you have an interesting observation. I have my own theory, which is evolving, but that is all it is. I *could* spell it out for you, but I won't. However I will take the time to guide you in your search of the truth. It is your choice whether you decide to take advantage of this guidance. |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Mar 29 2008, 02:57 PM Post #8 |
|
9/11 Planes were Electronically Commandeered |
![]() |
|
| Roxdog | Mar 29 2008, 04:27 PM Post #9 |
|
Why are the concepts mutually exclusive? Maybe they were on the planes and maybe they weren't. Neither strikes me as an impossibility... |
![]() |
|
| Headspin | Mar 29 2008, 08:33 PM Post #10 |
|
There were live-fly drills of hijackings on 911 Ruppert - Crossing the rubicon http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206840701&sr=1-1 Ian Henshall - 911 the new evidence http://www.amazon.com/9-11-New-Evidence-Ian-Henshall/dp/1845295145/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206840663&sr=1-2 This means that real people were flying on real planes pretending to be hijacked. Drills are as realistic as possible, look up what was said about RED-EX by the participants. What if, as part of this drill, electronic computer systems were to retake control of the planes from the hijackers during this drill and land safely at the airport. All that would be required would be for someone to reprogram the computer with a different flight path so that it collided with the twin towers. If this scenario is correct, then: what passengers would one expect to have on those planes? what jobs would they have? what people might you want to get rid of? and what occupation might they have that would enable you to have them on the plane? now, go look at the passenger and crew lists. |
![]() |
|
| Hetware | Apr 8 2008, 09:57 AM Post #11 |
|
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-planes-were-electronically.html |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Apr 8 2008, 01:59 PM Post #12 |
|
why does "remotely flown planes" necessitate "faked passengers"? |
![]() |
|
| HeyLeroy | Apr 9 2008, 09:53 PM Post #13 |
|
remote control takeover another remote control takeover |
![]() |
|
| Roxdog | Apr 10 2008, 11:13 AM Post #14 |
|
Seriously? This is the same old regurgitated garbage you guys have been posting for years. Right, some "aviation maintenance technician" asks "What happened to the people?" and that is supposed to be a valid "analysis" of the theory? Hilarious... Sophomore.
|
![]() |
|
| Roxdog | Apr 10 2008, 11:17 AM Post #15 |
|
Ahhh, yes. Now I see why I should take you seriously.... "You know that feeling you get in your guts, when after a good ten minutes spent on the crapper you finally rise, look in the bowl, and lo! you've just voided a turd the size of a toddler's leg?"- HeyLeroy http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showuser=1324 Friends nicepants 1074 posts Active: 8th April 2008 - 04:39 PM WildCat 1031 posts Active: Today, 02:21 AM Quad4_72 931 posts Active: Today, 03:58 AM MG1962 1489 posts Active: 5th April 2008 - 12:28 AM defaultdotxbe 1868 posts Active: 8th April 2008 - 11:27 PM |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Apr 10 2008, 06:07 PM Post #16 |
|
Is this the language of shillery HeyLeroy? lol
|
![]() |
|
| HeyLeroy | Apr 10 2008, 07:00 PM Post #17 |
|
What do those have to do with the question? Try and stay on-topic, guys... |
![]() |
|
| Stundie | Apr 10 2008, 08:50 PM Post #18 |
|
Sorry HeyLeroy, I noticed it on the link posted. However, I hardly think you are in a position to ask the thread to stay on topic based on your track record for derailing over at the SLC forum. Maybe you have turned over a new leaf? Anyway..... You posted 2 links? What do these prove or disprove?? All I'm seeing is pseudoscepticism! |
![]() |
|
| HeyLeroy | Apr 10 2008, 09:22 PM Post #19 |
|
My track record? That's a good one.
Different forum, different rules.
I was responding to the OP:
|
![]() |
|
| 22205 | Apr 10 2008, 10:06 PM Post #20 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
the first link is based on the assumption that the planes (11 and 175) that hit the wtc buildings or the planes that were alleged to have crashed (77 or 93 - the crashes of which are both in doubt), were in fact electronically hijacked. the author's debunk assumes the planes THAT CRASHED (or were alleged to have crashed) were typical commercial flights, and were therefore incapable of being electronically hijacked. it further assumes that the crashed commercial aircraft (77, 11, 175, 93) were exactly the same planes that took off from the airports that day - filled with the exact alleged passengers/crew. http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf
i have no technical expertise to over-rule or "debunk" the author's technical assertions. in fact im willing to concede he is most likely correct about the TECHNICAL preparations necessary to rig the aircrafts for remote electronic flight and/or hijacking. where he is in error, is in application or relevance. i think you would be hard pressed to find a "truther" who thinks any of the crashed planes were actually the same planes that they are alleged to be. in other words the planes that crashed (in this case only 2 of them have been filmed - 11 and 175), were most likely NOT the actual flights. so there was plenty of time to have retrofitted and prepared the actual crash planes for remote flight. this only applies to the two NY crashes, because we have visual evidence that shows planes actually crashing. in the case of 77 or 93, we have an absence of conclusive evidence of a commercial plane having ever crashed at their respective alleged locations, so hijacking (remote or otherwise) isnt even applicable. until proof of an actual plane crash has been established, and until such a plane is revealed to be a full-sized commercial airliner, the argument of specific method of hijacking is irrelevant. so his foundation (reasons 1 and 2 above) for why electronic hijacking of the planes could NOT be done, no longer applies if in fact a pre-rigged seperate plane replaced the original civil aircraft. since it is handy, i will give one example (from Leroy's 2nd link) of the available opportunity for the switch of an original commercial plane for a remote-controlled flight-ready plane: http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
yes lets not mull over that LITTLE point, though it may hold a huge clue to the actual fate of at least one of that day's flights. speaking of your second link Leroy, any chance you quote the specific section that addresses remote control flight? i skimmed over it and did a word search and found nothing relevant, but i admit i may have missed it. some (other) speculation(s): thanks to the detailed outline of necessary technical steps involved with actual rigging/retrofitting as put forth by apathoid, a new realization dawned on me, that its NOT EASY to prepare a plane for remote controlled FLIGHT. alot of work has to be done to the plane, especially if its a large aircraft like flight 175. this explains (to me) why in the case of flight 11, a smaller plane may have been used. since so much more work has to be done to rig a larger craft, perhaps rigging a smaller craft would be easier, so in the case of flight 11, thats what may have happened. the television star of the day was the 2nd wtc crash, filmed by many and replayed endlessly, so on that instance it was necessary to have a plane that matched exactly what the official story would be. since the first crash would catch most people off-guard it was NOT necessary to go through the added "trouble" of rigging a full sized commercial craft. so thank you apathoid for the marvelous detail with which you examined the prerequisites for remote controlled flight. knowing it takes that much work to get a large plane remote-ready really clarifies some of the logistical parameters and limitations the perpetrators would have faced. it even allows some insight into (the possibility of) why there wasnt a full sized plane crashed at either shanksville or the pentagon. think about it, if "they" (perpetrators) could say flight 77 caused the damage at the Pentagon or that 93 caused the crater in pennsylvania and get away with it in spite of the lack of an actual crashed plane, then "they" could just as easily crash an empty 757 there and tell their same tale. not much plane or evidence of such was found at either location, yet they told their fantastic tale anyway. if it was easy to obtain and remotely crash full-sized aircraft, they would have gone ahead and crashed some airliners into the ground at shanksville or the side of the pentagon, even if there wasnt any bodies on board. so "they" faced no limitations with regard to passing off their OFFICIAL story, but it seems they faced limitations in the way of obtaining and (remotely) crashing large commercial aircraft. apathoid's detailed description of the logistics suggests that procuring such an aircraft and fitting it with all the necessary parts for remote control, requires an extraordinary amount of man-hours and men. based on these logistics added to the (possible) need to compartmentalize and limit the number of men involved (for a covert operation), it could be deduced that only one full size commercial plane was fitted to be remotely flown in to its target (175). the others: 11 was a smaller remotely flown plane, while 77 and 93 were most likely piloted by skilled pilots, and landed somewhere other than where they are alleged to have crashed. that is unless im mistaken of course, and the entire official story is true. |
![]() |
|
| Roxdog | Apr 11 2008, 12:12 PM Post #21 |
|
I actually addressed your links AND pointed out to people how silly you and your friends are....Right on topic, thanks.
|
![]() |
|
| HeyLeroy | Apr 11 2008, 03:21 PM Post #22 |
|
You did nothing of the sort. In other words, you have nothing to refute the information in those links, and you attempted to 'shoot the messenger'. Thanks for posting. |
![]() |
|
| JFK | Apr 11 2008, 04:10 PM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Hi Hey Leroy. I am browsing your 2nd link and I suggest this link as a refute to your statement on page 6.- http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/204104/1/#new |
![]() |
|
| 22205 | Apr 12 2008, 06:21 AM Post #24 |
|
Arlingtonian
|
hey leroy, i attempted to respond to your link(s), scroll up, u may have missed it. please respond. thank you. |
![]() |
|
| enviroace | Apr 12 2008, 11:11 PM Post #25 |
|
Remote-controlled jets seems like the most possible explanation to me. Look in the trees behind the crash sit at shanksville. This is a frame captured strait from the CNN movie America Remembers. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic » |








Shanked.jpg (133.21 KB)
2:13 PM Jul 11