FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Remote Control Planes: Hardcore evidence?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:24 am    Post subject: Remote Control Planes: Hardcore evidence? Reply with quote

I found this article browsing away on 'tinternet

For a while now I've been hearing about this remote control ability on these planes, but I havnt seen a serious body of evidance to show that this system exists and what its capabilities are: its often mentioned but taken as an article of faith: it seems credible, but I dont know for sure: seems like time to find out. The bottom of the article does give research tips

Can anyone help bring data forward?

Has anyone already looked at this in depth?

I'll do some digging myself, but obviously, its best to ask!

Quote:
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.


The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.

Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I'd bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.

Our information IS controlled

The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.

It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts.

I hope I made sense, if you have questions I will respond if possible. If I do not respond, please research this out yourself, search the boeing site, search the DARPA site, search were you have not searched before. Some of the information is classified and leaked by individuals, and it is also being scoured from the net. I have all of the original documents on my computer to safeguard against this.

Please do not ignore this, because only Norad has the flight codes for those aircraft, we did 911 to ourselves. Hitler had the Reichstag, we have 911. If 911 proves to not be enough to make the US citizenry set aside its rights for safety, the people who did 911 most certainly have access to nuclear material. 911 must be exposed for what it was before that material is used. "
http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I havnt been able to free up the time to get into this area yet, but please consider this post a *bump*, I'm hopefull other members might have more to bring forward on this Q
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey John
I hope you are well.
I did a search on the Boeing and DARPA site and could not find much. However Boeing do seem to be the main people producing Unmanned aircraft through their Skunk works facility at (Yes ) Area 51.
These are their latest publicly available projects.

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/military/x-45/x45p hotos.html

The Boeing Humming Bird (Latest remote control aircraft)
http://www.boeing.com/ids/advanced_systems/hummingbird.html

After a Google search of 'Remote Control 757' I found this article. The links have all been removed from the web, I wonder why???

Quote:
Remote control: built-in or bolt-on?
by Jerry Russell

Advocates of the theory that remote control might have been used to guide the 9/11 aircraft to their targets, have been troubled by a debate over whether the necessary remote controls were actually built-in to the aircraft, or whether they were bolted-on as a retrofit for the specific tasks of 9/11. Both theories have been viewed as having difficulties: building the system as standard equipment would require too many people to know about the system (causing security difficulties), while a retrofit of the system would also be too complex and expensive with excessive risks of discovery.

A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/background.html

Flight Deck
The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crewmember operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments.

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

[....]

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft can fly any of the seven 757/767 family members with only minimal additional familiarization.

Furthermore, additional functionality can easily be added by simply uploading the required software.

Operational program software (OPS).
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/ps02txt .html

The operating system of an LRU, the OPS acts on data contained in the operation program configuration (OPC) files to define the function of the LRU. The OPS is typically the largest, most complex software associated with an LRU, both in the amount of information it contains and the time required to load the software. Obtaining certification for new versions of an OPS requires commensurate time and effort.

Operational program configuration (OPC).
This software is a specialized database that determines the LRU configuration and function by enabling or disabling optional features contained in the OPS. Configuration information is also supplied to many LRUs through hard-wired discretes (program pins). The large number of possible combinations of software and program-pin configurations complicates configuration management. Though an OPC will probably never completely replace program pins, Boeing has placed as much configuration information as possible in the OPC. The OPC is small compared to the OPS and typically requires less than one minute to load.

Database.
A database is a collection of data arranged for easy access and retrieval by the operating system of an LRU. Some of the databases used by software loadable LRUs are:
Flight management computer (FMC) navigation database (NDB).
.......

The NDB, which is quite familiar to operators, is a database of navigation and route information used by the FMC to carry out navigation tasks. NDB software is typically revised every 28 days and becomes available approximately one week before it becomes effective. Unlike other loadable software, the NDB is date controlled as opposed to part number controlled.
......
Summary
Loadable software can be a useful tool for Boeing operators by providing them with the ability to quickly change or update functionality on their commercial airplanes. If operators take the necessary steps to prepare for the maintenance of loadable software systems, they can keep fewer hardware LRUs in stock, increase hardware commonality, and reduce airplane modification time. The maintenance activity to use loadable software includes procuring the necessary loadable software parts and loadable LRUs, managing software libraries, preloading loadable software parts into loadable LRUs off the airplane, and verifying that loadable software part configurations conform to airplane certification documentation.



Remote control technology readily available
Here we find the solution to the question of how a hijack recovery system could be implemented using a central control facility, so that knowledge of the capability would not need to be widely dispersed among ground control personnel. The technology would be implemented using satellite communications links, as noted by the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.geocities.com/anitaalittle/landing_with_remote_control_does nt_quite_fly_with_pilots.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0109280208sep28.story

But companies that have designed such systems for the military say it wouldn't be difficult to adapt the technology for commercial aircraft.

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. developed a remote-controlled reconnaissance plane for the Air Force called Predator, which flew in Bosnia during the conflict there. Used by the military since 1994, it can be landed by pilots linked by satellite using controls on the ground or ordering an onboard computer to do the job.

Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas."

Cassidy said Thursday that a pilot aboard a commercial airliner could turn the plane's guidance over to ground controllers at the press of a button, preventing a hijacker--or anyone else aboard--from flying the plane.

That system also would keep people on the ground from taking control of a plane away from the pilot, Cassidy said, because the pilot would first have to give up control.

Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said. Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists.

"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day."

We can only conclude that the hijack recovery capability could easily have been implemented as a secret project well prior to September 11; but also that if it had not been built as a standard capability, it could also have been uploaded as a simple software upgrade for specific mission requirements.

UPDATE 5/26/2002
I recently received some mail from a reader that pointed out another possible problem for the remote control theory. The 777 was Boeing's first true fly-by-wire design. The 757 and 767 apparently used a mechanical linkage with hydraulic power assist. Although the 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems. Normally this is done by simply disabling the automatic systems, but in any event the mechanical linkage would always allow the pilot to wrestle control by applying sufficient force to the yoke. It would be like driving a car with a power steering pump failure.

See

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/Aircraft  /Boeing777.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

Also a discussion here, much of which I don't agree with, but possibly some good info about how the standard control system is designed

http//www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/4/191234/589

Vialls imagines a system where the airplane flies itself regardless of pilot input. But implementation of such a system in the 757/767 would require a complete overhaul of the aircraft control systems, to create a means to disable the mechanical linkage.

It would probably be possible to add a remote control to the 757/767 with software changes only, but such a system would only be effective if the crew (and presumably the hijackers) were somehow disabled or detained or otherwise prevented from wrestling with the yoke to override the computer controls.

This isn't necessarily a fatal objection to remote control theory, but we would need to explain how both the original crew and the hijackers (if any) were prevented from attempting to override the system.

For more on Vialls and the remote control theory, also see my earlier article "New questions on remote control and 9/11".

UPDATE 5/28/2002
Another reader points out that extra hydraulic power could probably be added to the system fairly easily, possibly by just modifying valves or pumps.

http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm


I'm still searching.

Peace and love

DK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry I'll be more selective after this, however its worth a skim through. This exceding software limits has been mentioned as far back as 2002.

Quote:
http://www.newsgateway.ca/9_11_aircraft_remote_control_.htm

Col. Donn de Grand Pre - former top US Pentagon arms salesman under the Ford and Carter administrations

A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.

In a detailed press communiqué the inquiry stated: “The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.”

The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.” STORY

Further pilot comments: "I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes."

"If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?

"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15."

"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." Why?

"I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft"


Remote Control

Based upon the evidence, we can safely say that two airliners hit the World Trade Center. That part was filmed and/or witnessed by many people. There is, however, no footage of Flight 77’s famed aerial maneuver just as there is no footage that shows an airliner actually hitting the Pentagon. The only thing ever produced was a film that showed the side of the Pentagon and then a large ball of flame.

Flight 77 remains the greatest unsolved mystery of 9/11 but that does not alter my belief in the guilt of the suspects.

What we have, however, is a feat of airplane driving that far exceeds the skills reportedly possessed by any of the alleged hijackers. In fact, the flying skill required for such a maneuver surpassed even those of commercial airline pilots.

The Wargames

The military has been practicing shoot-downs of remotely piloted aircraft since the 1950’s. I consider it likely that on September 11th all four aircraft were remotely piloted or taken over by a system that can be activated without the flight crew’s ability to intervene. I believe that the apparatus to remotely pilot the two planes that struck in New York was housed and operated from within the New York City Office of emergency Management (or very close by), where we know that a Secret Service agent was already in place and communicating with Dick Cheney.

Since 7 WTC was a not struck by anything and it collapsed so perfectly, as if in a controlled demolition, I believe that this was necessary and had been planned in advance with the express intent of destroying the electronic equipment needed to make the precise maneuvers necessary to get the airliners to hit the buildings. Leaving that equipment behind was too risky.

Remote control technology for commercial aircraft is fairly common. However, one particular company stands out in this area and is noteworthy for one of its executives, Dov Zakeim. Independent journalist Cheryl Seal, writing in New Zealand’s, Scoop Media:

The plane was remotely controlled by a command transmitter system, at least in the final minutes. There was an explosive device on board, which was detonated immediately before impact, probably remotely controlled as well. The timing, trajectory, etc, may have been generated by a software program of some sort that could work this out to the millisecond…

[So] Here is a description of an advanced, “fully mobile” CTS built by System Planning Corp., [a key executive] of which is Bush’s undersecretary of defense and long time Texas pal Dov Zakheim.

A quick trip to the SPC website confirmed that the company is engaged in projects including Homeland Security, Intelligence and Advanced Concepts, Advanced Technology, Signatures and Electronic Warfare Technology, Radar Physics, Counterterrorism, Emergency Management, Biowarfare, and Communications Networks.

SPC also plays a key role in planning an executing wargame exercises.

When it comes to remote control technology for the piloting of commercial aircraft, SPC offered the appropriately named,

Flight Termination System

…a fully redundant turnkey range of safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.

…the system is fully programmable and is flexible enough to meet the changing and challenging requirements of today’s, modern test ranges.

The system can be configured to operate as a single local site or with up to eight remote sights over an extended range. Each CTS unit may be controlled locally (manually), or as part of the larger FTS system.

Zakheim was also a signatory on PNAC’s report “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” Crossing the Rubicon



Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon. Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources. STORY


Live Film Footage of United Airlines Flight 175's Long Range Approach to World Trade Center

As any airline pilot will confirm independently, the 'reverse feel' on a Boeing 767 travelling at 575 mph is so high that the controls feel like lead, and simply cannot be moved as quickly as you see in the film without overwhelming hydraulic assistance, which can be provided only by the automatic flight director. The pilots themselves cannot disengage the 'reverse feel' placed on the controls, because it is an integrated feature designed to stop the pilots accidentally injuring passengers by imposing extreme "G" forces at high speeds.

In turn this reveals the obvious: If qualified airline captains are incapable of flying a Boeing 767 in this manner, then it is completely out of the question for a bunch of "Arab Terrorist Hijackers", who failed their basic Cessna training courses in Florida.

Put bluntly, this is the only known footage of United Airlines Flight 175 that completely destroys the government myth about 'Muslim fanatics' allegedly taking over American commercial jets. The [permissable] short clips showing Flight 175 just before impact do not allow time for such detailed analysis, but this long attack profile certainly does. STORY



Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.

The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it. STORY


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

Stan Goff former Special Forces officer:

American Airlines Flight 77 - 9/11 -- "At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 degrees over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC.

Now, the real kicker. A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts." [this is a landing by hijackers whose only interest was how to fly, NOT how to land an aircraft]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

Quote:
Flight Termination System
System Planning Corporation's is proud to offer the Flight Termination System (FTS), a fully redundant turnkey range safety and test system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles. The FTS consists of SPC's Command Transmitter System (CTS) and custom control, interface, and monitoring subsystems. The system is fully programmable and is flexible enough to meet the changing and challenging requirements of today's modern test ranges.

The FTS is generally deployed in one of two configurations:

Multi-Site System: a network of multple CTS units spread over a large geographic area

Multi-Control System: multiple operator consoles sharing control of a single CTS unit

Multi-Site System





Because many installations require several remote CTS units that can be controlled from either the remote site or a centralized site, the FTS has been developed to control a fully redundant automated network of transmitters. The system can be configured to operate as a single local site or with up to eight remote sights over an extended range. Each CTS unit may be controlled locally (manually), or as part of the larger FTS system. The fully redundant central control unit also supports either manual or automated modes of operation.

Mission logging is performed by the Range Monitor, an independent subsystem which monitors commands to the CTS as well as transmitted RF tones. All activity is recorded for post-mission analysis.

One of FTS's major strengths is its flexibility. A fully programmable command library provides a variety of mission-specific command tones in addition to the required Command Destruct sequence.


http://www.sysplan.com/Who_We_Serve
Quote:
Who We Serve
SPC is a research organization that focuses on national security through innovative use of advanced technology. We pride ourselves in providing nationally-recognized System Engineering, System Analysis, and System Planning principally for the Intelligence Community, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
We consist of Centers of Excellence that have the knowledge and talent necessary to solve any problem in their sphere of expertise, ranging from national security policy research to assisting first responders at the city and state level. We are at the cutting edge of stealth measurements, image processing and identifying advanced technology for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Intelligence Community, the Army, Navy and Air Force, and for Homeland Defense.

We are an employee-owned Delaware Corporation with over 35 years of national service. We maintain a level of about $50 million of research in research contracts, having served over 250 agencies and performed over 2,000 contracts. We have a staff of over 200, most of whom are engineers, scientists and analysts. Our principal centers and laboratories are located in Arlington, Virginia, near our national security customers.


Department of Defense

Department of State

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Justice

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Commerce

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of the Interior

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Intelligence Agencies

Our customer base includes more than 250 state and local government agencies, U.S. defense and aerospace companies, a variety of other U.S. and international corporations, and foreign governments.

Non Federal Customers

[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi All check this site out if you have not already. NASA have a crash reseach facility which in 1984 crashed a remote controled Boeing 707.
Amazing pics below.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/CID/Small/index.html


Remember page 10 point 8 a in the Northwoods documents.

Peace and love

DK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm...Cabin decompression would solve the problem of attempted Pilot override fairly simply

Quote:
Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas."

(Hmmm, or the reverse, depending on intent JW)
....

"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every day."


Well that certainly shows that we are not in the realm of Science Fiction here

Without access to the raw data, we are not going to be able to know for sure, but I'd evaluate the above as safely being in the realm of:

"There is a strong possibility that" (remote control could have been used)

Thankyou Dry kleaner, and yes, I am balanced, centered and well

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure if this could be relevent.


http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0602&file= 0602transponders.htm

Quote off the web page above...

"Not making the headlines was the Department of Transportation’s (DoT’s) recommendation No. 16: to create a task force "to develop modifications to transponders to assure continuous transmission of a hijack signal, even if the flight deck-selected code or function is turned off." Air traffic control (ATC) tapes from Sept. 11 revealed that identification and altitude information ceased from the hijacked aircraft after the aircraft made dramatic deviations from their approved courses. Thus it became apparent that the perpetrators had disconnected or disabled the aircraft’s transponders

The Mode S transponders aboard Boeing 767 and 757 aircraft, such as those used on 9/11 as "flying bombs," deliver aircraft identification and altitude and can supplement FAA’s radar by "providing ATC and traffic alert collision avoidance system (TCAS)-equipped aircraft the ability to determine position and heading information," according to DoT. "A lesson from 9/11 is the importance of ensuring continuous transponder communication with ATC, regardless of a hijacking.

"Without the transponder switch in a fully active position, ATC can track an aircraft only by primary radar, which does not indicate aircraft identity and altitude," states DoT. "The loss of this information causes other aircraft to lose awareness of the flight in progress." "

Could this indicate plane switching ?

This surely indicates as the transponders were off those plane did not exist in the sense of identifying `their` flight paths.

_________________
TRUTH IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg72486.html

Quote:
Dov Zakheim just resigned as Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon, in charge of the military checkbook during a period when trillions of dollars wernt unaccounted for. But what is more interesting is what he was doing just BEFORE he was appointed by George Bush to the Pentagon.
Along with co-authoring "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" which was published by The Project for a New American Century in September 2000, exactly a year before 9/11, Dov Zakheim was CEO of a company that manufactures equipment to remotely pilot aircraft.


Rumsfeldt announced $2.3 trillion was inexplicably "missing" from the Pentagon budget on September 10th 2001. Hours later the Pentagon is hit with a plane that melts. The spot it hit? Why, exactly where all the bookkeepers and accountants and their records were kept. Those that were not in WTC7 that is. Shame! Perhaps now we will never know why every man woman and child in the USA has been screwed for over $8,000 each.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CrazyBlade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 44
Location: Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fascinating reading guys, I am becoming more and more convinced of remote-controlled planes being used on 9/11. Would you have any objection to me re-posting this on the Loose Change forum, I feel it would be of interest to several on there and maybe gain some more insight which I would, of course, share here. Let me know ok??

Kind Regards,

CrazyBlade

_________________
"People should not be afraid of their Governments...
Governments should be afraid of their People"
V For Vendetta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If its not on there already Crazyblade it certainly should be!

Go for it, always Wink

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CrazyBlade
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 44
Location: Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks. I've not seen it but will have another look before I post it. Its possible I just missed it. Will take another look.

Kind Regards,

CrazyBlade

_________________
"People should not be afraid of their Governments...
Governments should be afraid of their People"
V For Vendetta
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1846
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GEFBASS wrote:
Not sure if this could be relevent.


http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0602&file= 0602transponders.htm

Quote off the web page above...

"Without the transponder switch in a fully active position, ATC can track an aircraft only by primary radar, which does not indicate aircraft identity and altitude," states DoT. "The loss of this information causes other aircraft to lose awareness of the flight in progress." "

Could this indicate plane switching ?

This surely indicates as the transponders were off those plane did not exist in the sense of identifying `their` flight paths.


The biggest evidence for a plane switch is that, as Mr Tarpley points out in his book, the planes were not piloted to their destinations by the fastest and shortest route but in a roundabout, casual kind of way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15562
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Best article on this fascinating subject IMO is by the sadly deceased Joe Vialls. Ex-military man I believe.


"Home Run"
Electronically Hijacking the World Trade
Center Attack Aircraft


http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.
Before moving on to the New York and Washington attacks, we first need to look at the ways in which an aircraft is normally controlled by its pilot, because without this basic knowledge, Home Run would make no sense. In order to control an aircraft in three-dimensional space, the pilot uses the control yoke (joystick) in front of him, rudder pedals under his feet, and a bank of engine throttles located at his side. Without engine thrust the aircraft would not fly at all, so the throttles are largely self explanatory: For more speed or altitude increase throttle, for less speed or altitude decrease throttle.
In order to raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, the pilot pulls or pushes on the control yoke, which in turn raises or lowers the elevators on the horizontal tailplane. To bank the aircraft left or right, the pilot moves the control yoke to the left or right, which in turn operates the ailerons on the outer wings. Lastly, to turn left or right at low speed or “balance” turns at high speed, the pilot presses the left or right rudder pedals as required, which in turn move the rudder on the vertical stabilizer.
Back in the early days of flight, the control yoke and rudder pedals were connected to the various flight control surfaces by thin cables, meaning the pilot had direct physical control over every movement the aircraft made. This was no great problem for an average man flying a small biplane, but as aircraft grew ever bigger, heavier and faster over the years, the loadings on the control yoke and rudder pedals became huge, certainly well beyond the ability of a single pilot to handle unaided.
By the late fifties we were well into the age of hydraulics, where just like the power steering on your automobile, hydraulic rams were placed in line between the pilot’s control cables and each individual control surface. Now when the pilot moved the control yoke, the cables activated sensors, which in turn activated one or more hydraulic rams, which in turn moved one or more control surfaces. For the first time since Bleriot and the Wright brothers, pilots were of necessity being steadily distanced from direct control of their own aircraft.
When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different functions were now known as the “Flight Control System” or FCS, in turn integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews.
In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished with a new aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at that time. Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went ahead on this basis and built “back doors” into the new computer designs. There were two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a primary control channel for use in taking over the flight control system and flying the aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert audio channel for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary channel was activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground control, permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control loop.
Remember here, this was not a system designed to “undermine” the authority of the flight crews, but was put in place as a “doomsday” device in the event the hijackers started to shoot passengers or crew members, possibly including the pilots. Using the perfectly reasonable assumption that hijackers only carry a limited number of bullets, and many aircraft nowadays carry in excess of 300 passengers, Home Run could be used to fly all of the survivors to a friendly airport for a safe auto landing. So the system started out in life for the very best of reasons, but finally fell prey to security leaks, and eventually to compromised computer codes. In light of recent high-profile CIA and FBI spying trials, these leaks and compromised codes should come as no great surprise to anyone.
Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most readers will have heard of a “transponder”, prominent in most news reports immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique “identity” for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run “piggy backs” a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives.
The Home Run listening device on the flight deck utilizes the cockpit microphones that normally feed the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), one of two black boxes armored to withstand heavy impact and thereby later give investigators significant clues to why the aircraft crashed. However, once hooked into Home Run, the CVRs are bypassed and voice transmissions are no longer recorded on the 30-minute endless loop recording tape. If Home Run is active for more than thirty minutes, there will therefore be no audible data on the Cockpit Voice Recorders. To date, crash investigators have recovered the CVRs from the Pentagon and Pittsburg aircraft, and publicly confirmed that both are completely blank. The only possible reason for this, is data capture by Home Run, providing the final hard proof that the attack aircraft were hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by “Arab terrorists”.
Many readers might by now be indignant; convinced this is incorrect or misleading information because of “those telephone calls from the hijacked aircraft”. Which telephone calls exactly? There are no records of any such calls, and the emotional claptrap the media fed you in the aftermath of the attack was in all cases third-person. We had the media’s invisible “contact” at an airline who “said” a hostess called to report a hijacking, and we had a priest (?) who “said” he received a call from a man asking him in turn to call his wife and tell her he loved her.
Presumably this man would have had his wife’s name filed in his cellphone, and faced with imminent death would have called her direct. The FAA helped out by claiming that it had “overheard” a heated argument from a cockpit where the radio transmit switch had been left in the “on” position. When push came to shove, the FAA was forced to retract, and admit that the mythical argument was not on the tapes at all.
Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks. As Laurence T. May points out:
"On September 11, airline check-in counters were the only places in the United States that required travellers to present a photo ID in order to travel. A photo ID meant (and still means) a card issued by some branch of civil government. Years ago, the United States government took the first step toward a national ID card when it mandated the requirement that all passengers present a photo ID card before being allowed to get on a commercial airplane.
"This means that the tightest security that the typical American ever confronts is airport security. This is the model for all other security systems governing the general public. Let's go through the check-in routine together. Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at either a United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your job to ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the
ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card." .. And, you guessed it, the name on the ID must match that on the passenger manifest held by the airline ground staff!
It seems highly likely that these revealing passenger manifests will magically disappear when the American Government realizes the dangers of allowing the public access to such incriminating documents. For that reason I have listed the full manifests on a separate page. To visit that page and copy the lists, click here.
Whether more information will be forthcoming about Home Run is unknown, but nowadays there are large numbers of people apart from the author privy to the basic data. As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be “rescued” by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet.
A casual count indicates that more than 600 aircraft in the USA and elsewhere are still vulnerable and could be used in further attacks at any time, which might help explain why America has been bombing the Afghans primarily with bags of wheat. For the first time in US history, American officials appear to be genuinely fearful of future reprisals, and justifiably so with 600 giant bombs parked on the wrong side of their missile defence shield.
It is a “Catch 22” situation. In order to make all of the aircraft safe, the flight control systems would have to be stripped out and replaced, at a cost of billions of dollars the airlines cannot afford because they are going broke. Nor is there enough time. The most innovative anti-hijacking tool in the American arsenal, has now become the biggest known threat to American national security.
For the purpose of public reassurance I would like to publish a complete list of aircraft which cannot be affected by Home Run, but I cannot do so for legal reasons. Any aircraft manufacturer not on the list might feel inclined to sue me for defamation and I can’t afford that. However, there is nothing to stop me publishing my personal choice of aircraft for a flight from, say, Atlanta to Singapore via JFK, Frankfurt, and Kuala Lumpur.
From Atlanta to JFK I would probably travel on a Boeing 737, and connect with a Boeing 777 for the onward flight to Frankfurt. At Frankfurt I would probably board an Airbus A340 for Kuala Lumpur, and finish the journey on a DC9 or a Fokker 100. Naturally I might be unlucky and pick an aircraft with an intoxicated pilot, or an unrelated mechanical problem, but apart from those minor risks I’d feel pretty safe.

15 October 2001

After this page had been hit on by more than 10,000 curious visitors, the current issue of "Business Week" (22Oct) decided to publish an unusual letter, suggesting that the events of the 11th of September would have ended rather differently if there was a capability for Ground Tower Control to "take over the controls of a hijacked plane" (issue still available at any US newsagent).
Remember, the American Federal Government kept Reagan National airport in downtown Washington, DC shut, despite the fact that none of the "hijacked" planes came from there. However, if it were possible to "take over the controls" of a plane, then it would take less than a minute for planes close to DCA airport to be diverted to a target anywhere in the capital. There were just two aircraft types involved on the 11th of September.
Eventually, after much reluctance, the government has now opened up Reagan National airport again, but ONLY for planes with less than 156 seats. Now what kind of planes previously operating happily out of Reagan National will this new "seating" restriction exclude? Hint: Among a few others, the Boeing 757 and 767.
Cynics might be tempted to conclude that, as usual, "important" politicians and bureaucrats are being provided with discreet special protection from Home Run, while everyday Americans are left to take their chances as best they can, and run the continual risk of being shot down by one of their own F16 fighters. Ignorance may be bliss for some folk, but not for those who have studied this page and realized the implications.

18 October 2001

Suddenly, more than five weeks after the attack and for no apparent reason, the most powerful newspaper in the western world published a major article "reinforcing" the myth that physical hijackers were responsible for the attacks on 11 September. No hard facts of course, no corroboration at all, just the usual pathetic series of media "sources", all of them far too "secret" to reveal.
Within hours of this newspaper going to press, television reporters across the entire western world repeated the fiction to their own viewing publics. From London in England to Sydney in Australia, everone woke to this new "proof" that Arabs were the real culprits. Never mind public safety, please believe what we, your trusted and experienced news peddlers, are telling you. To read the propaganda, click here.

19 October 2001

During the past few days I have received many emails asking for a written explanation of who was behind the attacks on 11 September, and why. As an investigator I can prove how the attack was carried out, but I cannot prove why or by whom. Of all the work I have seen on the Internet, the closest to the truth is probably this imspired report called "Orient Express" written by journalist Israel Shamir. To read "Orient Express", click here.


25 October 2001

Though I do not agree with the financial rationale where this report is concerned, the Colonel and his highly specialized group provide valuable additional insights into the impossibility of "hijackers" flying the attack aircraft on 11 September. To read "The Enemy is Inside The Gates", click here.

20 January 2002

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.
How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!

Home Run Part 2, click Here


The author is a former member of the Society of Licenced
Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist, London

This report may be republished unedited for non-commercial
purposes in the interests of public safety

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if you watch the hillarious British Army TV adverts you will see them using an UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) to make surveillance tapes of ground forces.

The only difference between that and a 757 is the size of the aeroplane. You even see them using an X-Box console joypad to fly it!!!

(I doubt thats technically accurate Laughing ).

The technology is fairly basic really; just a jumped up system like that of a remote controlled toy car. (obviously rather more developed).

Thats not to say I think its probable, but definetly quite possible. I was quite sceptical for a while just on principle but I do consider it well worth thinking about.

I don`t mention it much, because like so many other aspects; its quite impossible to prove and doesn`t really get us any further down the line.

C.

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
spiv
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 483

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:40 pm    Post subject: Remote control aircraft... Reply with quote

Snowy, I was telling you about the scene in the DVD "911: Ripple Effect" in which a large Boeing passenger aircraft was deliberately crashed. If you haven't yet seen it then do take a peek.

It's either being flown by a kamikaze Boeing pilot, or remote control, you take a guess. If a kamikaze, I hope he picked up his paycheque prior to takeoff!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15562
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat May 18, 2013 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Latest on the remote controlled military Boeing 757 hypothesis

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8m2zWWvMac

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Husq
Suspended
Suspended


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Operation Aphrodite" 2nd World War drones.



Link

_________________
"Soon after the year 2000 has been written, a law will go forth from America whose purpose will be to suppress all individual thinking. This will not be the wording of the law, but it will be the intent" Rudolf Steiner: Gegenwärtiges und Vergangenes in Menschengeiste (The Present and the Past in the Human Spirit)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2545
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2013 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lot of eyewitness reports to seeing a plane including the firemans at 3:46. The drone theory at least has some history (northwoods etc)
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 1842
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre
If real
Had some interesting things to say
Interesting, but hardly conclusive


Donn de Grand Pre
THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES
Thu Aug 7 19:44:51 2003
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/8-10-03/discussion.cgi.64.html

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), in his book, "The Viper's Venom" concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by remote control technology. Grand Pre was the top US arms dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations. What he saw caused him to leave government service and begin investigating the forces he saw warping our nation's destiny.

==========

http://www.sweetliberty.org/guests.htm

Donn De Grand Pre'
Profile: Author of the book Barbarians Inside The Gates: The Black Book of Bolshevism. Donn is retired military. Served in WWII and the Korean "police action". Stated reason for the book: to sound the alarm, U.S. military is being downsized, downgraded, degraded and demoralized. Barbarians/Bolshivists in charge hold the highest ranks of military office. While we find his suggested remedy frightening, he makes a case. Highly recommended reading for its documented historical facts that fill in many blanks; i.e. Swedish Jew, D. D. Eisenhower's rise to power, responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Germans post WWII; Holocaust hoax planned in 1919; history of Israel's creation/ creators; ongoing media blitz foments animosity toward Arabs.. the real Semites. Published in 2000, Barbarians brings us to present day.
Address: Grand Pre' Books, Inc., PO Box 1124 / Madison, Virginia 22727
Phone: 1-800-603-3575 (For Visa and Mastercard orders only!)

==========

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/enemy.html

Donn de Grand Pre, a retired Army colonel, is author of A Window on America, Confessions of an Arms Peddler and his latest, Barbarians Inside the Gates

THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES
by Donn de Grand Pre

A dedicated group of experienced civilian and military pilots, including combat fighter pilots and commercial airline captains, just finished a marathon 72 hours of non-stop briefings and debate over the current crisis evolving from the use of commercial aircraft as cruise missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September.

The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.

As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets (world financial center and the citadel of world strategic military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, equaled the Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941.

The over-riding question: If we are at war, who is the enemy?

The group determined that the enemy is within the gates, that he has infiltrated into the highest policy-making positions at the Federal level, and has absolute control, not only of the purse strings, but of the troop build-up and deployment of our military forces, including active, reserve and National Guard units.

PRELUDE TO PANIC

The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for "combined UN activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government.

The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only be prevented (temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time), martial law will probably be imposed in the United States.

In each of the major wars of the 20th century, the financial manipulators (located in the City of London and New York City) had placed the US (and much of the Western world) in a monetary expansion mode, followed by an ever-tightening vice of a gigantic credit squeeze. We now have two ongoing and tightly controlled simultaneous events (emanating from the two symbolic targets of 911:

1) Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman, promising to flood the market with up to $200 billion in FRNs and to further lower interest rates, thus bringing about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation. Much of these multi billions in largesse will be dumped into the coffers of Wall Street, Defense, bankrupt airlines, insurance companies and into the willing arms of debt-ridden third-world countries in the form of debt repudiation (forgiveness). Call it bribery, in order to get these often reluctant nations to join our coalition of "freedom fighters" in "the war against terrorism".

2) Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Defense secretary, promised that the US will launch "sustained military strikes against those behind the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington". He said that the "military retaliation would continue until the roots of terrorism are destroyed."

This bit of saber rattling was seconded by select NATO allies (especially Britain), and by our chief ally in the Middle East, the Butcher of Beirut, Ariel Sharon, while Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, with the blessings of Pres. Bush 11, is activating thousands of national guard and reservists, not only to guard the vulnerable airports, but to do fly-overs of our Nation's capital in F16s from the North Dakota Air Guard. Other National Guard units are being jockeyed into potential combat "hot spots" throughout the Middle East/South Asia and the Balkans.

WHO IS THE ENEMY?

Following is a summary of the near-unanimous views of the assembled military and civilian pilots concerning certain critical factors relating to the WTC/Pentagon hit of 9-11:

Troubling questions arose about the alleged pilot-hijackers of the four aircraft, who were supposedly trained on Cessna aircraft over the past year at fields in Florida and Oklahoma. One General officer remarked, "I seriously question whether these novices could have located a target dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR (instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45 minutes."

The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets, was superb. As one Air Force officer -- a veteran of over 100 sorties over North Vietnam -- explained, "Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control."

Another pilot warned that "we had better consider whether electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used from a command and control platform hovering over the Eastern Seaboard... I'm talkin' AWACS."

Another comment: "If there was an AWACS on station over the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic flying missiles?

A hotly debated question: Who would be in command of such an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Were they Chinese -- Russians -- Saudis -- Israelis -- NATO ? All of these countries possess AWACS-type aircraft. All (except the Saudis) have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them by remote control.

One of the Air Force officers explained that we had already flown a robot plane the size of a Boeing 737 across the Pacific to Australia -- unmanned -- from Edwards AF13 in California to a successful landing on an Aussie base in South Australia. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but is "monitored" (controlled remotely) by a pilot from an outside station.

He explained that the London Economist (20 Sep 2001) published comments from the former CEO of British Airways, Robert Ayling, who stated that an aircraft could be commandeered from the ground or air and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.

COMMERCIAL JETS AS GUIDED MISSILES

An AP story, dateline Brussels - 7 Oct 01 -- "At Washington's request, NATO will soon deploy surveillance aircraft for anti-terrorist operations in the United States in response to the attacks on New York and Washington, NATO officials said Sunday, an unprecedented use of foreign military forces to defend the U.S. homeland."

The assembled group of pilots debated why we would ask for foreign forces to fly AWACS over our sovereign territory when we have a fleet of 33 of them, of which 28 are stationed in Oklahoma. The debate also centered on whether such NATO surveillance aircraft were already here prior to 11 September.

Could one of them have commandeered the four airliners?

There seems to be wide discrepancies between what the Federal government is proclaiming -- and their media moguls reporting -- as opposed to the calm and reasoned and rational views of those men who fly the planes and defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

This writer has been a general aviation pilot since 1946. 1 have flown a variety of single engine prop aircraft since, and installed an FAA-approved airstrip here on my farm in 1980. Two local pilots periodically joined me for short hops; one, a Madison County lawyer, a graduate of the Air Force Academy, who flew for the Air Force before coming home to practice law.

The other, Kent Hill, who lives with his wife, Carol, on a farm close to mine, is an American Airlines captain assigned to the European route. He was a lifelong friend of "Chic" Burlingame, They were graduates of the Naval Academy and flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Both left the Navy 28 years ago and joined American Airlines. Both planned to retire in 2002. Chic was the captain of AA flight 77, a Boeing 757, which departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles at 8: 10 am on I I September, with 58 passengers and a crew of 6. Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 am.

"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack," Capt Hill said, "where you treat the hijacker cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However, this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes alerted ground control that they were being hijacked." How come?

"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between 8 am and 8:15.

"Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their transponders are de-activated.. (they are no longer a blip on the radar screens). This is something that really needs to be looked into. The only reason we turn them off is so they don't interfere with ground systems when we land."

(Note: Transponders identify a particular aircraft in flight on the radar screens of FAA flight controllers located throughout the country. Various codes are punched into the transponder, one displaying, "I am being hijacked.")

Although there is much talk among the various flight crews, Hill says they are not privy to any of the investigations into the events of I I September. "We're in the dark -- very much so ... They're playing it pretty tight to the vest."

He is convinced none of the pilots had control of their aircraft when they were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The question then becomes, who was really in control?

"Even if I had a gun at my head, I'd never fly a plane into a building. I'd try to put it in anywhere -- a field or a river --and I'd be searing the hell out of them (the hijackers) by flying upside down first," Hill said.

In fact, the pilot has the best weapon in his hand when threatened with imminent death by a hijacker, namely, the airplane.

Another airline pilot stated. "On hearing a major scuffle in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft and the hijackers end up with broken necks."

That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control.

As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that the four commercial jets were choreographed by a "conductor" from a central source, namely an airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft.

As we consider all the options -- and enemies -- who performed this act of war, whether from China, Russia, Israel, an Islamic country, or from NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may be within the gates.

If so, then we are dealing with high treason.

IS THERE A CHINA - ISRAEL CONNECTION?

Under a heading "High-powered Microwave weapons' (Regnery Pub 1999) reported: ', the authors of Red Dragon Rising,

High-powered microwave weapons (sometimes known as radio frequency weapons) which the PLA calls the 'superstars' of warfare, represent the new armaments that may define twenty-first century warfare. These very dangerous weapons can jam electronic equipment by emitting an extremely powerful pulse of electromagnetic energy over a wide area, or their energy can be focused in a narrow beam for use against American satellites I or commercial airliners - Ed 1.

In that startling and factual work, the authors highlight the exceptional efforts on the part of the PLA to acquire the latest hi-tech data from the United States, especially for the "superstars of radio frequency and electro-magnetic pulse weaponry." In their chapter on "Targeting America", the authors refer to a bipartisan Cox-Dicks Committee given the task to investigate "U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial concerns with the Peoples Republic of China".

They point out that the Clinton administration changed the export control regulations (Jan 1996) and that by the end of 1998 the PRC had 600 American super computers.

In 1997-98 the Congressional Joint Economic Committee held hearings on "Radio Frequency Weapons and Proliferation: Potential Impact on the Economy". Several experts appearing before the Committee warned that these weapons pose a distinct threat to the United States. It was revealed during the hearings that China (PLA) has had a high-powered microwave weapon program for 25 years under the direction of one of many Chinese students educated at Berkeley over the years.

The key statement was that the PLA has access to American research -- "through espionage".

Let's fast-forward to 1999 and to a New York Times Op Ed piece by A. M. Rosenthal (22 Oct 1999), in which he described the long-secret arms deals between Israel and Red China He was the managing editor of the New York Times for 15 years prior to that article appearing and a dedicated supporter of Israel. However, as a result of that article, he was fired.

The title of his Op Ed was "The Deadly Cargo", and the lead sets the theme:

More often now, the special cargo arrives in China from Israel -- riles from Israeli military computers, crates with the makings of missiles and other weapons, and the men in the lab coats, the engineers and scientists who know how to put it all together...

And now I see the Chinese minister of defense, who is one of the ranking Tiananmen killers, visits Israel. I read obsequious Israeli speeches praising him and his government...

The two countries talk openly about bigger arms deals in the making. I learn that the Chinese have knit together Russian and Israeli specialties...

The Russians are converting Ilyushin planes into the framework of U.S.-type flying command posts (AWACS) and will ship them to Israel...

In an astounding interview by Tom Valentine (24 Oct 1999) o

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group