Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Remote-controlled Jets?
Topic Started: Feb 18 2008, 03:57 PM (1,435 Views)
kwb1965

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.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

The technology was available and being used in 1984 by NASA. -

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Rice

South Tower Plane Was A Military Drone Aircraft

http://letsrollforums.com/south-tower-plane-military-t16589.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crikey
Member Avatar

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"? :blink:
That's a little too far fetched even for me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

2 words... Operation Northwoods.

Google it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crikey
Member Avatar

JFK
Feb 23 2008, 08:19 PM
2 words... Operation Northwoods.

Google it.
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

9/11 Planes were Electronically Commandeered
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Roxdog
Member Avatar

Crikey
Feb 23 2008, 07:58 PM
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"? :blink:
That's a little too far fetched even for me.
Why are the concepts mutually exclusive? Maybe they were on the planes and maybe they weren't. Neither strikes me as an impossibility...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

Crikey
Feb 23 2008, 07:58 PM
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"? :blink:
That's a little too far fetched even for me.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hetware

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/911-planes-were-electronically.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
look-up
Member Avatar

Crikey
Feb 23 2008, 07:58 PM
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"? :blink:
That's a little too far fetched even for me.
why does "remotely flown planes" necessitate "faked passengers"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeyLeroy
Member Avatar

remote control takeover

another remote control takeover
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Roxdog
Member Avatar

HeyLeroy
Apr 9 2008, 09:53 PM
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.

:D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Roxdog
Member Avatar

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

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Is this the language of shillery HeyLeroy? lol

HeyLeroy
 
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=24664
Tm9wZSwga2luZGEgZ290IGJ1c3kgYW5kIGFjdHVhbGx5IGZvcmdvdCBhYm91dCBpdCEgIEl0IHNlZW1zIGFsbCB0aGUgZ29vZCB0cm9vZmVycyBoYXZlIGdvbmUgYXdheS4gIE9oLCB3ZWxsLCBtYXliZSBJJ2xsIHB1dCBvbmUgdXAgZm9yIFNlcHRlbWJlci4
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeyLeroy
Member Avatar

roxdog
 
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
 
Is this the language of shillery HeyLeroy? lol


What do those have to do with the question?

Try and stay on-topic, guys...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

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!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeyLeroy
Member Avatar

stundie
 
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.


My track record? That's a good one.

stundie
 
Maybe you have turned over a new leaf?


Different forum, different rules.

stundie
 
Anyway.....

You posted 2 links? What do these prove or disprove??


I was responding to the OP:

Quote:
 
Does anybody have any links to info on the assertion that it was remote-controlled planes that flew into the Twin Towers?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
HeyLeroy
Apr 9 2008, 09:53 PM
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
Quote:
 
Remotely guiding Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 into their respective targets. This solves all of the problems
presented above and then some. But how would it be accomplished, theoretically? Is there an easy way ? Short
answer. No, there is not an easy way to do this for two reasons:
(1) -A very well trained flight crew.
(2) -A very complex and very redundant web of systems that work together to control every aspect of flight.


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
Quote:
 
This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. - - This portion of the Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio but let's not mull over that little point.


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.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Roxdog
Member Avatar

HeyLeroy
Apr 10 2008, 07:00 PM
What do those have to do with the question?

Try and stay on-topic, guys...
I actually addressed your links AND pointed out to people how silly you and your
friends are....Right on topic, thanks. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HeyLeroy
Member Avatar

Roxdog
Apr 11 2008, 12:12 PM
HeyLeroy
Apr 10 2008, 07:00 PM
What do those have to do with the question?

Try and stay on-topic, guys...
I actually addressed your links AND pointed out to people how silly you and your
friends are....Right on topic, thanks. ;)
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

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

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
22205
Member Avatar
Arlingtonian
hey leroy, i attempted to respond to your link(s), scroll up, u may have missed it. please respond. thank you.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
enviroace

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.
Attached to this post:
Attachments: Shanked.jpg (133.21 KB)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic »
Add Reply