remote control theory

[jfk]

people who believe 175 and 77 hit the towers, and also believe 911 was an inside/outside job that involved no hijackers, must therefore believe that the planes were remote controlled.
remote control may be possible, but, in my view, highly unlikely.

[Newspeak International]

people who believe 175 and 77 hit the towers, and also believe 911 was an inside/outside job that involved no hijackers, must therefore believe that the planes were remote controlled.
remote control may be possible, but, in my view, highly unlikely.

No one anywhere ever believed flight 77 hit WTC tower 1,except for your good self

[fish5133]

JFK wrote

must therefore believe that the planes were remote controlled.
remote control may be possible, but, in my view, highly unlikely

.

Hi JFK. If you download a copy of the 1962 Northwood Document you will read that the idea of flying a remote control plane made up in the colors to simulate a standard commercial jet and shoot it down in order to justify US military invasion in Cuba was considered an option by the Joint Chiefs of staff.

I am not advocating that this was the case but maybe. Similar scenarios were also considered for using remote control ships.

Same document also says "We could sink a boatload of cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)...."

The Northwood Document IMO is an important read for 911 truthers and skeptics as it reveals the minds of people in power and the lengths they would go to in order to achieve their political goals. it was a key document for me and answers the idea that "governments wouldnt do such a thing"

[jfk]

sure, i know that it's possible, but not easy.
my point is, concerning 9/11, that the remote control theory is more far fetched than tv fakery.

[marky 54]

sure, i know that it's possible, but not easy.
my point is, concerning 9/11, that the remote control theory is more far fetched than tv fakery.

it dos'nt matter what is more far fetched, what matters is what is true, what the evidence leads to and what the facts confirm.

its not a competion between theorys or who's theorys better.

every piece of information is either true or false regardless of what theory it comes from.

working from a made up mind on a theory and then finding evidence to match it or fit it, will only mean you will ignore evidence that dos'nt fit but which could be true and overlook wrong evidence within your own theory.

basically meaning your building a case that fits a theory you have convinced yourself is the only possible explaination, but may not be totally true or even true at all.

thats not research imo, it just convincing yourself your right whilst ignoring problems with the theory and other potential evidence.

theres a lot of wrong information people still believe, simply because it fits their theory, that they have already convinced themselves about before it has even been proven or even stands up.

so it works like this just as an example:

a guy says he saw no plane, npt believer links it and goes, "look proof", with no thought about why he may of not seen the plane, because the npt believer has already made up their mind. and then took information to fit the theory rather than looking at what the information proves from a neutral point of view. ie: nothing, as no references were made to where the guy was standing or if he looked in the correct direction for the 2-3 seconds he could of had a glimpse of the incoming craft etc etc.

it aint just npt, im just using that as an example, its the same with all theorys.

[jfk]

marky, i agree.
but remote control is a theory used to explain how planes hit the towers with no hijackers involved. i. e. it is used to make that theory work, with zero evidence

[Stefan]

RC is one of many possibilities of how the planes were piloted, no one I see is obsessing over it or presenting it as a certainty; I personally see no point in spending time on speculating on the areas we can never know about.

But I would say this: there is nothing unlikely about it at all - why you present it as difficult or complicated is beyond me - it's a completly plausible and unremarkable solution.

[arthur two sheds jackson]

Stefan

You say say RC is one of many ways the planes could have been piloted.

Many ways to me means lots of ways, so please can you tell us some of the other ways they could have been piloted?

[Stefan]

I should have said "RC-No Hijackers" is one of many scenarios.

RC No Hijackers
RC Real Hijackers
RC Wargame actor Hijackers
RC Real Pilots
RC Wargame Pilots
Real Hijacker Dupes
Real Hijackers (OCT)

Now are you going to elaborate on why controlling a plane from instruments on the ground is such an unfeasable feat to you?

[arthur two sheds jackson]

I do not dispute that remote control is possible, just that it did not happen on 9/11.

On this day, there were no planes, no smoke, no gash and no Edna Cintron, these scenes were made prior to 9/11 and spliced into the live footage.

This is clearly possible as demonstrated by the Czech artists who inserted a nuclear explosion into a weather report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7171374.stm

[chek]

I do not dispute that remote control is possible, just that it did not happen on 9/11.

On this day, there were no planes, no smoke, no gash and no Edna Cintron, these scenes were made prior to 9/11 and spliced into the live footage.

This is clearly possible as demonstrated by the Czech artists who inserted a nuclear explosion into a weather report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7171374.stm

Well, with such a grasp of events of that day, you should be pretty harmless as long as you don't mention to anybody you have any connection with the search for the truth of 911.

P.S. I see you are just as confused by perspective as the hilarious MAI regarding the Edna Cintron photos. 3-D world, 2-D pictures it must be awful for you.
I never thought I'd see the day I'd (mostly) agree with the Webhag's view, but there ya go. Shame she hasn't got the wherewithal to express it clearly.
I never thought I'd see the day

[John White]

marky, i agree.
but remote control is a theory used to explain how planes hit the towers with no hijackers involved. i. e. it is used to make that theory work, with zero evidence

Theres the compelling evidence that planes hit the WTC

No such evidence for no planes, thats all in shreds

I agree theres no evidence proving remote cotnrol, just as i agree theres no evidence proving hijackers

(or, as grown ups say, the evidence is circumstantial)

Doesnt mean either, or even both, isnt what happened

[jfk]

two sheds wrote

no smoke, no gash and no Edna Cintron, these scenes were made prior to 9/11 and spliced into the live footage.

generally I do not agree

stefan wrote

RC Real Hijackers
RC Wargame actor Hijackers
RC Real Pilots
RC Wargame Pilots
Real Hijacker Dupes
Real Hijackers (OCT)

stefan, your six alternatives to RC no hijackers all involve hijackers! wargames or not
as for 'real hijacker dupes', you might as well have wrote 'real hijackers' twice.

[marky 54]

RC No Hijackers
RC Real Hijackers
RC Wargame actor Hijackers
RC Real Pilots
RC Wargame Pilots
Real Hijacker Dupes
Real Hijackers (OCT)

i aint sure if you miss qouted the post but RC no hijackers was included.