Strong circumstantial evidence for remote-controlled planes?

[Nathan_Hale]

Going back through a few things I ran across a pdf I downloaded a few years back, one that's no longer available on the web it seems (and seemingly never discussed here on DU) and whose author also seems AWOL for a few years now. A self-described Muslim engineer out of Belgium, Muhammad Columbo (and obviously not a native English speaker), did an analysis, overlaying the takeoff, deviation and crash times of the planes that day and concludes that the planes were under remote control because, simply put, the second plane does not deviate from its regular course until the first is on its final approach, the third plane does not deviate ...until the second plane is on its final...etc.
To me it's somewhat compelling and back in 2004-05 I never saw anyone on several forums post any alternative explanation. Interested in everyone's thoughts....


Here are the (active) URL's from the picture:

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=hijacking+timeline&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm



here's a chart to use against MC's text: http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html









Without squabbling over a few minutes here or there, after AA11, it appears that no other jet deviates (indicating the hijack point) until another has entered its final approach (i.e. last few minutes to crash).

And maybe 93 crashes because its controllers ran out of 'operational window' perhaps?

[SDuderstadt]

1. Jesus...

not this shit again.

[Nathan_Hale]

3. kein Gott,

kein Kaiser noch Tribun
Uns aus dem Elend zu erlösen

[BeFree]

19. Interesting

As you watch the video of what is thought to be AA11, it's course takes a hard left just at it approaches the tower.

Would imagine that if piloted by a human there would have been no hard left, just straight shot with minor deviation.
If the plane were directed at a beacon of sorts, the course change would be wholly expected.

[zappaman]

21. Heh

Humans can't make hard lefts.

[BeFree]

25. Why would they?

Minor adjustments are what they do in approach situations. No bold moves.

But if following a beacon or remote operated, straight line flying would be the norm with course deviations needed at intervals - hence the hard left into the tower. You can see how the wings were tilted by the impression on the tower face. Whatever was flying that plane almost missed the target.

[zappaman]

27. "Minor adjustments are what they do in approach situations. No bold moves.

One of the dumbest things I've read.
You do realize that minor adjustments are made by pilots so as not to alarm or discomfort the passengers, right?
Do you think the hijackers cared about the passengers' safety?
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[BeFree]

32. Dumbest?

Heh, your comments are beyond dumb. You are just throwing shit. You are not even trying to have a discussion.

The fact that the plane would have missed its target without that last second turn, is good evidence of non-human operation.

[zappaman]

37. I stand corrected

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read...

"The fact that the plane would have missed its target without that last second turn, is good evidence of non-human operation."

Keep it up...you're two for two today.

Heh.

[BeFree]

39. Heh

It's obvious, then, you don't even read your own crap.

A plane, traveling at 500 miles an hour, makes a last second turn and barely hits the building.

Take away that last second turn and it flies right on by. No human whose intent is to fly directly into a building would set themselves up to have to make such a move. Think of it as coming in for a landing. Any pilot that set themselves up to have to make a last second turn to hit the target, would have his', or hers' license questioned.

[zappaman]

49. heh

"Any pilot that set themselves up to have to make a last second turn to hit the target, would have his', or hers' license questioned."

Good thing the hijackers didn't have to worry about getting their licenses pulled.
By the way, do you even believe there were passengers on those planes?
I want to gauge the level of your delusions...

[BeFree]

54. oh?

You can prove those planes had passengers? I look forward to it, and NO, bushco provided evidence is, as yall have claimed about bushco, bound to be totally incompetent and lacking any truth.

So... what ya got?

[ryan_cats]

151. Maybe they made two rights...

Maybe they made two rights...

[Nathan_Hale]

2. Try again...

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[SDuderstadt]

4. Dude...

Why did the "remote controllers" crash UA 93 straight down into a field?

Do you ever stop to subject your screw bullshit to the slightest bit of critical analysis?

[Nathan_Hale]

5. Who knows?

Such a question can only earn speculation, can't it? Maybe the operators thought there would eventually be an effective NORAD response and thought they were out of operational window, i.e. no more time to get to a target. Anyway, stick to the thrust of MC's thesis, will you?

[SDuderstadt]

6. I AM sticking to it...

If the plane was remotely controlled, why would the perps remotely care what NORAD was doing? How would that have closed an "operational window"?

I am asking logical questions that you can't answer that essentially disprove your screw bullshit, dude. "Who knows?" isn't lending credibility to your claim. If you can't defend it against hard questioning, you might want to reconsider posting it in the first place.

[Nathan_Hale]

8. No...

the thrust is the sequence: deviate, final approach, deviate, crash, final approach, deviate, crash......

[SDuderstadt]

10. Which is contradicted by UA 93...

it makes zero sense to crash a "remote-controlled" plane miles short of its intended target.

You never see the logical holes in your screwy bullshit, but that's hardly a surprise.

[ryan_cats]

87. I think you miss the point...

I think you miss the point...

1) If they had hit the building straight on, it proved remote control because no human pilot could be that good. OR

2) Since they hit the building at an angle, they were off because the plane was remote controlled.

Classical heads I win, tails you lose...

[Stanchetalarooni]

7. UA 93 was shot out of the sky.

Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

9. If it was shot down...

there would be a wide swath of heavy debris over a large area.

You make even less sense than the OP.

[Stanchetalarooni]

11. True.

Dude.

[deconstruct911]

15. And crash it at the White House?

WHY?

[SDuderstadt]

16. Huh?

Wouldn't that have more impact?

[deconstruct911]

18. yea,

it would probably hurt the economy more than they needed so it would be completely pointless.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Dude...

do you expect us to believe that the "perps" waited until AFTER they hijacked/commandeered the plane by remote control, THEN decided it would cause too much damage??

Do you guys not seriously wonder why you're not taken seriously when you say stupid shit like this?

[deconstruct911]

22. Dude

Think about this. You are the one that thinks they would maximize their losses when the entire point is to stage the attack for profit.....

YES, a better question would be WHY did they include united 93? It took off around the same time the north tower was hit, maybe part of a backup plan in case anything goes wrong with another plane?.... Also the attack was supposed to look symbolic. It would be logical to include the political aspect. How would they include the political attack without attacking the political headquarter?


Hint: the OCT of flight 93

[SDuderstadt]

23. Dude...

you DO realize that your theories/questions make absolutely no sense, right?

The so-called "OCT" makes far more sense because it doesn't have all the unnecessary complexity required to explain the "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit.

[deconstruct911]

24. OK thanks bud.

[zappaman]

26. Hint:

"WHY did they include united 93? It took off around the same time the north tower was hit, maybe part of a backup plan in case anything goes wrong with another plane?"

I guess the perps made sure there was heavy traffic that day so the flight could be delayed 40 minutes?

:rofl:

[deconstruct911]

17. A better question would be why did they use flight 93. nt

[KDLarsen]

12. Gotta love the NWO..

"They" were even able to predict that there would be congestion at Newark on 9/11, leading to UA93 departing some 40 minutes late! :eyes:

Is there anything "they" can't do?

[ryan_cats]

171. They can't make a decent cup of coffee.

They can't make a decent cup of coffee. I have to leave the HQ to go across the street to get something decent and that really sucks when these NWO planning sessions go on forever.

[wildbilln864]

13. thanks! nt

:hi:

[Ohio Joe]

14. So... tell me...

How did they distract the mechanics long enough to get the remote control gear installed? How long did that take? How did they manage to get the pilots to not notice that remote control gear was taking up the cockpit? How did none of the flight crew notice?

Just how many were in on it to get this done?

[Nathan_Hale]

28. Hey....

I'm just looking for another explanation besides MC's that makes sense. Got one?
There's no evidence the hijackers were in contact with one another.
There's nothing to indicate any of the hijackers knew the progress of their colleagues...so where does the synchonization come from??

[SDuderstadt]

29. It's called...

"found significance".

[Nathan_Hale]

33. I'm so sorry....

...that cause and effect play no role in your life. Must make things hard.

[SDuderstadt]

35. I understand cause and effect far better than...

you, dude. To the extent there was "synchronization", please tell us why that could not have been planned in advance using timepoints.

[Nathan_Hale]

81. How do timepoints....

make any sense? The data doesn't show us any. If you read MC's info you see the hijacking points after takeoff are non-sensically staggered (from the hijacker's point of view). It wouldn't make any sense from the hijacker's point of view to delay any takeover. They can't figure they have all the time in the world to crash those planes without eventually being brought down. But the data shows us that each plane takes successively longer to deviate and doesn't until a previous plane is about to crash. Had this sequence happened once, ok, coincidence, twice-ok, 'found significance' but three times? Nobobody's going to believe that's chance.

[zappaman]

30. "so where does the synchonization come from??"

What synchronization?
They all had flights scheduled around the same time.
Were they flying together like an airshow?
Performing acrobatics with each other?
Do you think before you post ridiculous questions?

[SDuderstadt]

31. Not only that, but...

to the extent there was any "synchronization", what would keep them from planning it ahead of time, relying on timepoints?

Of course, conspiracists mystify everything, then summarily exclude the most logical explanations.

[Nathan_Hale]

82. You see the data...

...tell me what the 'timepoints' could have been. Or is timepoints just some handwaving on your part?

[Nathan_Hale]

34. Since the planes did not....

all take off on time makes the thesis stronger

deviate, final approach, deviate, crash, final approach, deviate, crash......

[Ohio Joe]

36. Thats fine, look for whatever you want but...

If you are going to forward another "theory" at least think it through. Do not just ignore the questions I posed because if there is no way to answer them then remote control is not the answer you seek.

[k-robjoe]

38. Don´t know about this

Don´t know if there is any hold in this. I´m posting it here for feedback.

( Some years ago, I remember I read a piece by somebody claiming that this technology was available. But he was arguing that it could have been used to take control over the hijacked planes, but wasn´t used. )

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

"Automatic Autopilot Override of Pilot Control of Boeing Aircraft Available Circa 2001.

The capability of an aircraft Flight Management Computer (FMC) to take control of an aircraft away from a pilot and turn over control to its autopilot system apparently existed circa September 11, 2001. In a 2003 "Aviation Week" report, Honeywell describes an already existing "secret" disabling FMC code that can allow a GPS-guided aircraft autopilot system to take away control of an aircraft from a pilot during emergencies. Honeywell state-of-the-art Flight Management Systems (FMS) were used by the four aircraft reportedly hijacked on September 11, 2001.

"Assisted recovery builds on existing enhanced ground proximity warning systems (EGPWS), autopilot or fly-by-wire technologies to prevent an aircraft from crashing into terrain or buildings ... If pilots don't respond to warnings within a certain amount of time, assisted recovery directs autopilot or fly-by-wire control systems to steer aircraft away from a crash ... A Honeywell spokesman said an override option does exist in its assisted recovery system through a secret disabling code."<1>

The development of a collision avoidance, control override capability within a Boeing 757 is documented as early as 1999. Boeing 757s and 767s containing common avionics, were used during the 9/11 attacks.

"Ultimately, if required, the system could initiate an automatically flown evasive maneuver. Validation flights were completed at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility and in-flight demonstrations of the system were completed at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in November 1999 for FAA officials and other Government and industry representatives. The NASA B-757 ARIES and a Honeywell Gulfstream IV (G-IV) were used in the flight test effort."<2>

A 2005 report on ground proximity warning systems states that the Boeing 767's that were crashed into the World Trade Center (WTC) relied on navigation databases that contained the locations of the WTC towers:

"The hijacked passenger jets that hit the World Trade Center buildings were equipped with EGPWS ... The twin towers were in the database"<3>"

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-03/automatic-autopilot-override-pilot-control-boeing-aircraft-available-circa-2001

[BeFree]

40. I remember that

Thanks for bringing it up k-robjoe. You are a great asset to weeding thru all this.

Remote controlled planes have been used in air navigation for decades. It makes perfect sense that airliners would be adapted to using the systems, and your post completely confirms that idea and fact.

[Ohio Joe]

42. Except that if you actually looked, you would see it does not

see 41

[Ohio Joe]

41. What Aviation week says and what 911blogger say are not the same thing

"Honeywell hopes to test its "assisted recovery" safety system designed to equip aircraft with another layer of protection against flying into terrain or other structures on a larger aircraft next year, signaling to U.S. regulatory authorities its commitment to bring the system to certification."

That is the first paragraph of the 2003 article. The technology did indeed exist in 2001 but was not implemented on any commercial flights in 2001.

Edit to add link to Aviation week article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/eva08133.xml

[BeFree]

43. well

It is your claim that the planes into the towers were the said commercial airliners.

There has never been any confirmation that your belief is true. No black boxes were found. No parts of the planes recovered and examined by independent experts and no photo details that enumerate the planes. Not that I have ever seen. Maybe you have the evidence hidden somewhere, ready to spring on us?

In other words, nobody really knows who they planes belonged to, right?

[Ohio Joe]

44. So you propose what? They were other planes?

I would try to bring you through the logistics of what would be required to pull that off, you know, things like what happened to the real planes and people, how many would be required to handle all of them, where did the decoy planes come from, how many were required to handle them, how many at the airlines would have to be in on it... you know, just the minor details that don't matter to the CT'er. I am though, already aware you do not like to look beyond what you read at CT sites.

[BeFree]

45. What I figured

All you have is more questions and no answers.

And I am aware that you really don't care that you have no answers and deny any reality at every opportunity.

Fact: planes fly all over the place. Very mobile. Your OCT planes could be just about anywhere on the face of the planet.

[Ohio Joe]

46. I look to reality based answers

So the airlines just decided to be in on it... and they managed to get their employees to be in on it as well when the planes went where they were not supposed to go? And the FAA was in on it also? And they managed to get their people to go along? When the recovered parts were returned to them, the airlines got more of their people to cover it up? All these people just decided to go along with it? They all said "Sure thing" when they were asked? Not one person refused? Yeah... that seems so much more plausible :crazy:

"Fact: planes fly all over the place. Very mobile. Your OCT planes could be just about anywhere on the face of the planet."

I see... and what country did they convince to also be in on it to bring the planes and people to? And when they landed, how many did they need to handle all those people? Murder them and dispose of the bodies? And all of those people were just fine to also be in on it? How many were then needed to plant their DNA at the crash sites? And all of them were real keen on the idea as well?

No thanks, I'll go with the reality and evidence based idea. And before you even say it, just because the evidence does not fit your fantasy does not mean it does not exist. You can deny the photographic evidence of planes all you want... you can claim that because you don't know enough to identify it as the real planes it can't be all you want... It is pure silliness. You really should try to look beyond cherry picked quotes on CT sites and put at least a little thought into what would be required for your fantasy to have happened.

[BeFree]

47. Heh

""..to be in on it as well when the planes went where they were not supposed to go? And the FAA was in on it also?"""

Geez, your planes went where they were 'not supposed to go' and what did the companies or FAA do?

""..When the recovered parts were returned to them""

What parts? Black boxes? Tail sections? Engines? You have pictures you are willing to share?

And your coup de grace?

"...just because the evidence does not fit your fantasy does not mean it does not exist..."

Do you even consider the goofy bullshit you espouse?

[Ohio Joe]

48. more silliness and... what a shock... not a single answer!

"Geez, your planes went where they were 'not supposed to go' and what did the companies or FAA do?"

They tracked them as best they could. Under your story, the airlines and FAA would have to have been in on it.

"What parts? Black boxes? Tail sections? Engines? You have pictures you are willing to share?"

You have seen them a million times, you just like to live in your fantasy world where they don't exist. I don't feel like uploading to photobucket so I'll google it for you since you apparently can't do that.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=plane+parts+9/11&wrapid=tlif129685805482310&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1345&bih=595

Those are not plane parts? oh wait... you are still completely ignorant of anything about planes therefor your fantasy must be true. You assume that since the airlines have not released a statement beyond that they got the parts back, they are keeping it quiet that the parts are from different planes. You are a lot like a birther, gotta see that long form... or his father was not a natural born citizen... or some other silliness.

But oh my god!!!!!!! They did not find the black boxes at the towers!!!!!!! The planes are fakes!!!!!!!!

Never mind the reality of the boxes falling with all that rubble. Never mind that they sat there while fires burned un-fought for... how many days was it? 12... 14 days, somewhere around there, you can look for the thread, I don't feel like it right now. Does reality ever have a place with you? Do you ever think anything through?

I would ask that you make even a feeble attempt to answer my question but you never... ever do. I wonder why that is... Why are you afraid to look at what it would take to fulfill your fantasy.

"Do you even consider the goofy bullshit you espouse?"

You invent fake planes, thousands of people in on it, other countries in on it all based on your inability to determine if the wreckage is from the claimed planes, while I give linked evidence and reasonable explanations. I answer questions while you evade. I think people are reasonable enough to determine where the real bullshit is.

[BeFree]

51. Fake planes?

You can prove your planes are the exact planes you claim? No, you can't.

I can prove that remote controlled planes could have been used and you can't prove RC planes weren't.

The FAA didn't know where the planes were. And there were all kinds of radar blips that are now thought to have been fake.

Where did your planes go? How about into the ocean? How about under ground like your 93 is said to have done? Bwahghaha.

And to show how shallow your arguments are you have to stoop so low as to compare me with a birther!! Bwahahaha!!

Do you realize why NO one here takes you seriously?

[Ohio Joe]

52. birther logic

Do you believe President Obama is a citizen? You have not seen the long form, right?

[BeFree]

56. What long form?

Of course I believe Obama is a US citizen.

So what the fuck are you on about?

What do you know about this 'long form' you wrote about?

Know this: I will not ever believe bushco's shit. The evidence is clear: bushco are total liars. Did you know that?

[zappaman]

58. heh

"Know this: I will not ever believe bushco's shit. The evidence is clear: bushco are total liars. Did you know that?"

Yeah....so?
That means they faked planes hitting the WTC?
Please outline your path of logic that lead to this ridiculous conclusion.
It's must be fascinating.
:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

60. You expect anyone to believe you are unaware of this CT?

heh, you fool no one. The long form, as opposed to COLB that was released is what one was given at the hospital in HI. By your logic, since you have not seen this, you should be in grave doubt that he is a citizen... No? You take that one on faith? But... I thought you truthers now felt President Obama was now in on it and helping with the cover up... No? Shouldn't you be checking into his past?

heh, birther logic, too funny :D

[BeFree]

61. Fuck that

Obama is an American citizen and you trying to tell me that I should have questioned that fact is really quite abhorrent.

I had 'heard' of the long form but I felt no need whatsoever to delve any further. Until you asked. You answered.

[Ohio Joe]

62. Then your logic is not consistant... You should work on that

Airlines only said they got back the remains of the planes, they did not issue certified proof that they were the same planes. ergo... They were different planes.

President Obama released his COLB but did not release his long form. ergo... thats ok.

Not very consistent logic you got there.

[BeFree]

63. Really?

"President Obama released his COLB but did not release his long form"

And this interest you, why? You have been studying this fake issue? How much research have you been doing?

[Ohio Joe]

64. hells yeah I've followed it, it's some of the funniest shit around

There have been some great links in GD about the adventures of Orlly Taitz (sp?). Really stupid logic amuses me.

But of course, you just deflect again and are now hiding from your inconsistent logic.

[BeFree]

65. So

Because I believe Obama is an American without question, I should not question bushco's OCT?

That is your idea of logic?

[Ohio Joe]

66. So the airlines are bushco now?

Yes, logic should be consistant... that is the whole point of logic. So again

Airlines only said they got back the remains of the planes, they did not issue certified proof that they were the same planes. ergo... They were different planes.

President Obama released his COLB but did not release his long form. ergo... thats ok.

Not very consistent logic you got there.

[zappaman]

67. Wrong, Joe

It's consistent "logic" if you are a "truther" or a "birther".
Really, aren't they two sides of the same coin?
One side doesn't believe what a president says and the other side doesn't believe what a president says.
If you think about it, "truthers" are even more delusional than "birthers" since they have to ignore a lot more evidence.
:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

68. heh, Truth

:rofl:

[BeFree]

69. Gawd Joe

bushco did give the airlines billions of dollars, right? And that after not issuing a warning that he knew planes were going to be hijacked. Right?

What does your logic make of those two occurrences?

Your conflating the two issues is ridiculous. 9/11 was the biggest crime ever on American soil, and Obama's birth certificate BS is a crock of republican BS that is not even worthy of mentioning according to me.

[zappaman]

70. Making things up again?

"And that after not issuing a warning that he knew planes were going to be hijacked. Right?"

He knew that planes were going to be hijacked? Should be easy to support that statement, right?
Did the PDB say there were going to be hijackings?
And I thought the planes were remote-controlled, so why would it matter what the PDB said?
In your world, Bush ignored a warning for something that didn't happen?

[BeFree]

74. So

You really are clueless about a lot of the known facts @ 9/11.

Look for my soon to come OP so you can learn something.

[Ohio Joe]

71. Cite?

What billions? When? The employees took money to cover this up? You really think that good old Steve the mechanic upon looking at a fake engine decided to take money to shut up about it? A NY'er? Right after 9/11? All the other mechanics did the same thing?

You don't know anyone from The City, do you?

"Your conflating the two issues is ridiculous. 9/11 was the biggest crime ever on American soil, and Obama's birth certificate BS is a crock of republican BS that is not even worthy of mentioning according to me."

You are having a hard time understanding, I understand why, with that faulty logic all. I am not conflating the two CT's, I am wondering why your logic is not conflating them. Why do you apply two different sets of logic to similar circumstances? Logic must be consistent, once you decide to throw it out the window because you do not want to look at something you know there is an issue with your logic. I am not afraid to look at the birther CT because my logic is sound. President Obama is a citizen and our legal President by virtue of the logic I apply to the CT.

What happens to your logic when you apply it to the birther issue?

[BeFree]

72. Fuck that

The moderators are empowered to lock or remove any post that disrupts discussion by insulting, attacking, or casting a fellow DU member (or members) in a negative light, or by diverting attention away from the message and onto the messenger.

[zappaman]

73. so, your inability to answer simple questions means you

are gonna cry foul?!!?!

:rofl:

[BeFree]

76. Questioning me about Obama's birth certificate?

The moderators are empowered to lock or remove any post that disrupts discussion by insulting, attacking, or casting a fellow DU member (or members) in a negative light, or by diverting attention away from the message and onto the messenger.

[zappaman]

77. LOL

It's your logic that is being questioned.
No one has said you question Obama's BC.
Nice dodge though!
:rofl:

[Ohio Joe]

75. Feel free to alert on me

I am doing none of those things. What I am trying to do is show the fault in your logic, you simply do not wish to look at it. Let me know if you change your mind and I will be happy to continue.

Edit - No cite... I'm shocked.

[BeFree]

78. heh

You wrote: "I am not conflating the two CT's, I am wondering why your logic is not conflating them."

That's some funny shit, dude.

[Ohio Joe]

79. Still no cite... still not addressing your logic... I'm shocked - nt

[Ohio Joe]

80. How about if I give a cite

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/dec2002/ua-d07.shtml

This one tells how bush drove United into bankruptcy by withholding bailout money to screw over the workers... You know BeFree... the same guys that are in on it... Why are they keeping quiet now?

[zappaman]

50. Heh...there is only one response to these fantasies

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[BeFree]

53. Good picture of you

That image will always come to mind whenever you show up.

A fat headed stick man kicking and screaming like some fool on acid.

[zappaman]

55. heh

if I was on acid, I probably would believe the same fantasies about "no planes" as you do.
wait...is that the key to denying the reality of that day? Makes sense!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[BeFree]

57. See?

Your 'no planes' is just total bullshit, leading me to believe you really don't have a clue, you are just spewing shit.

[zappaman]

59. "No planes"

"remote controlled planes", "no passengers", "no passengers", "thermite", "thermate", "missiles", "super thermite", "super duper thermate"...take your pick.
All are products of a delusional mindset.

Your truther "logic"---

Bush was bad, therefore they used remote controlled planes on 9/11.

What a twisted path you have to take to make that connection!
Does acid help?

:rofl:

[ryan_cats]

158. Um, no, it wasn'r fly by wire.

The 767 wasn't fly by wire, I believe it used cables that ran to the hydraulic actuators on the control surfaces, someone with more knowledge than I please correct me or enhance what I said.

From:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b767.htm

Boeing's conservative approach was illustrated in the 1970s and 1980s when it decided not to include in its 767 more advanced systems such as fly-by-wire, fly-by-light, flat panel video displays, and advanced propulsion systems (Holtby, 1986). Even though the technology existed, Boeing did not believe it was mature enough for the 767. Boeing also used what Gansler defines as a design-to-cost constraint. After Boeing defines a program it evaluates cost before going into production. Its cost evaluations include trade offs of performance, technology, and manufacturing investments.

[Nathan_Hale]

83. No alternative....

...theory yet...

[k-robjoe]

84. I have been asked

to draw your attention to this link :

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3907

[Nathan_Hale]

85. Yes....

I remember seeing this years ago...very strange. To me it supports the MC thesis. The planes, once hijacked, don't immediately turn towards their targets. This doesn't make sense if the planes are under manual control. What do you make of it?

[zappaman]

86. "This doesn't make sense if the planes are under manual control."

Seriously?
You really believe that?
OH
MY
GOD

[Nathan_Hale]

88. Anything useful to ....

add to this discussion? Why wouldn't the hijackers try to immediately execute their mission by turning towards the target? Why fly so far out of the way and then turn to NYC?

[Nathan_Hale]

89. That's kind of weird phrasing....

...who asked you, exactly?

In thinking about the info at that link, I can see it making sense for remote controllers to use a grid of air force bases as navigation points, kind of 'parking' a plane until they're all up in the air.

But on the other hand, in viewing the info as reference points for the hijackers, it doesn't account for how AA77 fits into the sequence.

[k-robjoe]

90. Maybe so

but I was in fact asked. By a guy that I made aware of your OP.

The link that I gave you, was a part in a series. So it´s hard to really get the thinking behind it, just from this link.

Your link, in the OP, seems to theorize that the original planes were hijacked by remote control, and were crashed into the targets.

To do that, it would be needed that a prototype of the "Automatic Autopilot Override of Pilot Control" ( see post 38 ) was installed in the four planes.

But the thinking in the link that I was asked to give you, goes further, and is into the idea of "plane swapping".

"The graphic below contains some introductory information about plane swapping, please also read "Holes in the Radar" and the other articles on this site for more information."

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=3907

To get the thinking behind it, one should read "Holes in the radar", but it is no longer to be found online.

"Holes in the radar" was speculating that the reason that flight 11 took that turn to the nothwest, was to meet up with another plane, at a particular spot where the radar-system had a "weak spot", and that the planes would then manage to do a swap, and it would not be detected.

And there were similar ideas about the other flights.

But some of the thinking that is put forth in the link, seems to be relevant even if one rejects the idea of plane swapping.

[Make7]

91. I'm not sure if this is the "Holes in the radar" article that you mentioned...

... but a quick search turned this up:

http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm">http://web.archive.org/web/20050208022355/http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm

Unfortunately the images don't seem to be showing up, but some of the links still seem to work. I often find www.archive.org to be a valuable resource when trying to find old web articles and web pages.
 

[chrisa]

92. LOL

This is so stupid (the theory). There are so many reasons why this wouldn't be possible.

And how is flight 93 out of the 'operational window" when planes where able to fly in NYC with no problem?

[BeFree]

93. heh

Yet the operational claim of the OCT... the "No one could imagine they'd use planes as missiles" is the real stupidity. Yet people still hold to that and continue to place faith in the criminals who used that as an excuse to keep from being held accountable.

So you have these people -bushco - who have dished up a big platter of lies and wars, and who knows what else, being totally left off the hook for their action/inaction, and the citizens who are trying to make sense of the carnage are the people being attacked.

Remember this... what supposedly happened on 9/11, if you had told the country it was going to happen, the country would have told you: "This is so stupid, there are many reasons why this wouldn't be possible".

[chrisa]

94. Using a plane as a weapon is always possible,

Flying 4 planes with remote control, unnoticed, and accurately is just ridiculous. Imagine trying to remote control something that flies so high and so fast, and putting it accurately into buildings. You have autopilot already, but autopilot still requires pilots to keep it under control.

It's certainly possible that some technology exists somewhere to support remote controlling airplanes from the ground below with such accuracy, but it's not really even a valid possibility. It's up there in realism with soldiers parajumping into the plane, and then crashing it into the towers, or hackers manipulating the autopilot firmware to make the plane hit the towers, or something like that. It makes zero sense.

[SDuderstadt]

95. If the planes were flown by remote control with...

the initial crew and passengers aboard, "truthers" would have to explain why not one single pilot radioed such to ATC.

Truly one of the goofiest theories out there.

[Nathan_Hale]

99. LOL....

For at least two of the planes, there was no radio at all after the hijack point!

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"At that same time, American 11 had its last routine communication with the ground when it acknowledged navigational instructions from the FAA's air traffic control (ATC) center in Boston. Sixteen seconds after that transmission, ATC instructed the aircraft's pilots to climb to 35,000 feet. That message and all subsequent attempts to contact the flight were not acknowledged. From this and other evidence, we believe the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter.24"

"United 175 pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14. By 8:33, it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet. The flight attendants would have begun their cabin service.41
The flight had taken off just as American 11 was being hijacked, and at 8:42 the United 175 flight crew completed their report on a "suspicious transmission" overheard from another plane (which turned out to have been Flight 11) just after takeoff. This was United 175's last communication with the ground.42"

Poor research on your part, SDuder.

[SDuderstadt]

100. That's my point, dude...

if, as you claim, the planes were being flown by remote control and had not been physically hijacked, why did no pilot radio such to ATC?

You just proved my point. Poor research, indeed. Are you really not following along here?

(Hint: I never claimed there any radio transmissions, dude. That's the question, get it?)

[Nathan_Hale]

103. Who ever said....

...they weren't physically hijacked? MC's thesis does not exclude this.

Now, poor logic on your part, SDuder.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Dude...

Why not just have one of the hijackers fly the plane? Why the unnecessary complexity?

[BeFree]

96. Zero sense?

Maybe since I knew someone who flew remote controlled planes in the 1950's before computers and all that, it makes perfect sense that remote controlled planes could be so accurately guided.

Then you have the fact that pilots say that the moves made by airliners on 9/11 were moves that only a very skilled and very lucky pilot could have made. The alleged pilots were not skilled pilots.

As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed".

Again, had you told the world that what happened on 9/11 was going to happen, they would have told you "No way, not possible, makes zero sense" so we are dealing with a set of things that at one time made zero sense and was not possible.

There are a few items proffered by the anti-OCTers that are un-questionably BS, but in the whole, many of the questions and alternate theories are quite within the realm of possibilities.

[deconstruct911]

111. Yea,

and what year was that Northwood's document from again.

[zappaman]

112. "As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed"."

Where is this stated and who said it?
Thanks in advance!

[Ohio Joe]

113. Neat

According to wiki RC planes did not come on the market until the 60's:

"Various scale sizes of RC scale aircraft have been built in the decades since modern digital-proportional, miniaturized RC gear came on the market in the 1960s,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-controlled_aircraft

and FYI, we did indeed have computers in the 50's.

[BeFree]

114. Germany WW2

Had missiles with navigation systems.

What is your point? You think I'm lying?

[Ohio Joe]

115. Lying and being incorrect are not the same thing

Pointing out when someone is incorrect (with supporting links) about facts is not calling them a liar, it is just setting the record straight, a nice benefit of having supporting links for ones claims, you should try it some time. A person is not a liar when they make an honest mistake when stating something, lying has an intent behind it. I mean... you also claimed there were no computers in the 50's... I don't think you lied about that, you were just... wrong. Everyone makes mistakes and it has been many years, I thought perhaps you were just off by a few years regarding the RC planes.

[BeFree]

117. Your personal animosity

Is clouding your head. I suggest you put down the keyboard and go fly a kite. Try to forget about Befree.

[zappaman]

118. "As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed"."

Are you looking this up to find out where the "OCT" states this and who said it?
Awaiting your response...

[BeFree]

126. Click this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=308086&mesg_id=308142

[Ohio Joe]

121. Don't you think it is important to get facts right?

I think it's important.

[BeFree]

125. heh

""I knew someone who flew remote controlled planes in the 1950's before computers and all that,...""

Gee, you think I might have known a military person who flew remote controlled planes before there were any computer avionics?

Huh? Do you? Can you even believe that you are fucking wrong? Of course not, that would be expecting too much. You don't give a shit about facts, you are just throwing shit. Well, you have managed to cover yourself in your shit quite well.

[Ohio Joe]

127. oh, I see, you saw some secret military RC plane before they were available

Thats cool. I had an uncle when I was a kid that worked in R&D for Xerox and he was always trying to get us to come to where he worked to see his cool stuff but we never did go... A shame, he played with some neat toys at work long before they were available.

"Huh? Do you? Can you even believe that you are fucking wrong? Of course not, that would be expecting too much. You don't give a shit about facts, you are just throwing shit. Well, you have managed to cover yourself in your shit quite well."

heh.. hehehehehe... bwahahahahahahahahahahaha, you are too funny :rofl: You know full well I always admit when I am wrong, hell I even apologize when I am... and you know that because I have apologized to you. You also know full well I am always willing to back up my facts. You now... lets see, when was the last time you admitted you were wrong... or backed up anything.... ever? Not that I am aware of. So I find that pretty funny coming from you. Readers should search to get the full joke on BeFree saying "You don't give a shit about facts", it's a hoot.

[BeFree]

128. Bullshit fanatasy of yours

Show me one link to a time you apologized for your being wrong. Just one.

All you have ever done is throw shit at me and evade questions. Even simple question like "What is the OCT."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=307757&mesg_id=308079

You are living in a fantasy world of your own making and have embarrassed yourself time and again, like you did here. Guess is you have no shame?

Face to face, mano-mano, you wouldn't even get away with the shit throwing and you know it. But you hide behind your computer and get away with it. One link, dude, one link where you ever said to me that you were wrong. Hell, you can't even do it now, can you?

[Ohio Joe]

129. No problem....

As soon as you back up a single one of your claims.

[BeFree]

130. See?

You were wrong here and you can't even admit it.

You make some bold statement that you always apologize and then you turn and shit on yourself in a matter of seconds. WOW.

[Ohio Joe]

131. See?

You are unable to back up any of your claims.

[zappaman]

135. when are you gonna back this up?

"As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed"."

Still waiting...

[greyl]

137. "From here on, I am sorry, but all you get from me is sarcasm and belittlement. I give up trying to

have honest discussions" - BeFree

Now there's a damn fine apology!

[snooper2]

166. I've got a really bitching video phone that isn't even GA yet

Come down to Texas and I'll show it to ya :) :hi:

(FYI, GA in this context means "general availability")

[zappaman]

116. "As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed"."

Where is this stated and by whom?
Still waiting....

[deconstruct911]

109. lmao

where computer systems fail, Muslims succeed. No wonder the Afghans stack up so well against all the advanced nations that pop by for a war.

[deconstruct911]

110. I say we hire Taliban to get to the bottom of the Pentagon accounting.

[BeFree]

119. LMAO

They do seem to be smarter than what some label our people as: "incompetent"

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

122. Hey, you must be catching on!

Yes, the Muslims succeeded!

[BeFree]

124. WTF?

You blame the Muslims for 9/11?

[Nathan_Hale]

97. Operational window....

...is meant to refer to the period of time available to complete the mission (sorry, that's the way we talk here in the DoD). When 77 crashed into the pentagon, 93 had just turned around over Cleveland - it was at least an hour to either NYC or D.C. To claim the hijackers thought they had all the time in the world to get this done is unrealistic. To claim they knew they had time to get this done....well that opens a whole can of 'inside' worms doesn't it?

My suspicion is that 93 was a backup plane in case the 11 and 175 weren't both successful and was dumped as it was no longer needed

[SDuderstadt]

98. I don't remotely believe that...

you're part of the Department of Defense, dude.

And, even if your claim about the "operational window is true, why not crash it into some closer commercial center? Your theory makes no sense. Sorry, that's how we talk here in the NWO.

[Nathan_Hale]

101. Here's the...

Authority Information Access off of my CAC card:

<1>Authority Info Access
Access Method=Certification Authority Issuer (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.2)
Alternative Name:
URL=http://crl.disa.mil/getsign?DOD%20CA-23
<2>Authority Info Access
Access Method=On-line Certificate Status Protocol (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.48.1)
Alternative Name:
URL=http://ocsp.disa.mil

:)

[SDuderstadt]

102. LOL...

too funny.

[Nathan_Hale]

104. Ah...yes...

...one of your canned lines when you get called out on your BS.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Dude...

do you honestly believe you just proved you work for the Department of Defense? Would someone who actually worked for the DoD disclose such information, even assuming it's true? Do you think you might be trying too hard to keep up your ruse?

[SDuderstadt]

107. You DO realize that...

it's a violation of 18 United States Code Sec. 912 to impersonate an employee of the federal government, right?

I'll be blunt, dude: I think that you're a garden variety, run-of-the-mill "truther" trying to sound like more than you are. You might want to quit while you're ahead.

[Nathan_Hale]

132. Ha, ha....

..I'm safe on that account, SDuder. That was only the PKI certificate (we're now up to 23/2048 bit)ID on our Computer Access Cards (Chip).

CN = DOD CA-23
OU = PKI
OU = DoD
O = U.S. Government
C = US

You're a riot!

[SDuderstadt]

134. Dude...

do you think anybody really believes you work for the DoD?

Too funny.

[Nathan_Hale]

139. WRONG!!

Zappaman does! (post 108)

:7

[SDuderstadt]

141. Dude...

if you can't tell that Z-man is playing you, you're even more tone-deaf than I thought.

[Nathan_Hale]

142. That's right....

I forgot you and Z-man don't engage in serious discussion. My bad.

[SDuderstadt]

143. We engage in serious discussion, alright...

it's just that you and your screwy bullshit don't qualify as such, dude.

[BeFree]

144. You're catching on Nathan

And thanks for this thread.

Are you like me in that I find it hard to believe the denial found here about a technology that has developed over 50 years?

[zappaman]

145. heh

Once again, as always, you shift the argument.

"Are you like me in that I find it hard to believe the denial found here about a technology that has developed over 50 years?"

Whether or not that is true, there is ZERO evidence it was used on 9/11.
Of course, you must have some evidence, but just don't share it?

Heh.

[BeFree]

146. Awww

You are so cute, following me around. I am flattered.

Do you think of me every night just before you close your eyes?

I have evidence that you do.

[zappaman]

147. If so, that would be the first evidence you had of anything! LOL

How about backing up this statement?

"As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed"."

Where is this stated and by whom?
Still waiting....

[BeFree]

148. I love you too.

[zappaman]

149. I get it

So, you just made that statement up. You have had numerous chances to support it, but you just dodge.
You and Bush are very similar in that regard...making shit up, inability to support false statements.
No wonder you're so obsessed with him.
Well, at least he has nothing to fear from you since you suffer from factual impotency.
Heh.

[BeFree]

150. eh?

Bush gave you your OCT and now you bash him? Good to see you going against him for once.

Oh, btw, I answered your 'unnoticed' question in my, your 'goofy bullshit' thread. Days ago. I guess you didn't read it?

[zappaman]

152. heh

You are mistaken.
I am looking for you to back up the following statement...
"As far as "unnoticed" that is exactly what the OCT states: the planes were "unnoticed"."
You can't support it and don't even try.
I think it's a lie. Just like Bush saying "Iraq has WMD."
You and Bush have lying in common.
Is that why you are so obsessed with him?

[BeFree]

153. bush?

The biggest fucking criminal ever in the US government who lied about 9/11? That bush?

FUCK YEAH. You have a problem with that?

[zappaman]

108. I think I know you!!!

Here's my info...

<1>Authority Info Access
Access Method=Certification Authority Issuer (4.8.6.1.7.5.6.3.68.1)
Alternative Name:
URL=http://crl.disa.mil/getsign?DOD%20CA-78
<2>Authority Info Access
Access Method=On-line Certificate Status Protocol 4.8.6.1.7.5.6.3.68.2)
Alternative Name:
URL=http://ocsp.disa.mil

[Nathan_Hale]

133. Hey...

...don't you work down in the dungeon (that would be the S-2 around here)? What's your PIN? Send it to me on SIPR.

[Nathan_Hale]

140. Nice try.....

...certificate 78 doesn't exist.

:thumbsdown:

[chrisa]

123. lol

:spray:

[apocalypsehow]

157. Clicked the "printer friendly" button, and am printing this reply out. First time I've ever used

that feature on DU! Learn something new every day.

Anyway, just spotted this post, and funny thing is, I happen to be acquainted with some real-life DOD employees. Some of my fellow Toastmaster Club members are DOD (civilian) employees who work on an actual Air Force Base not too far from my own place of employment. The next meeting we have, I'm going to show this (printed) post to them, and ask them about it. And then we'll know.

[defendandprotect]

136. Well, I'm of the "No Planes" thinkers ... but certainly there have long been

remote controlled planes --

[SDuderstadt]

138. I wonder who D&P thinks...

she's talking to, since she basically has all of us on "ignore".

Too funny.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

154. Drones

[zappaman]

155. Drones?

I've heard people that believe crazy things about 9/11 referred to by many things, but "drones" is a new one.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

156. not really

[Larry L. Burks]

159. Bingo!

No Planes?

Remote control? What!

You have to ask your self. What’s wrong with this picture? And what is right about.

Here is what you have to know about the history. Of hi-jacked air plains. Remote control air craft 9/11, and no planes.

Way on back when Way on back when Regan was president.

We had a lot of hi-jacked air planes. Regan said he wanted this problem fixed.

Regan wanted our aircraft fixed so they can not be hi-jacked.

Auto pilot. Every hear of it. The big commercial air craft had auto pilot on them.

When the pilots put the plane on auto pilot. The plane would fly it self.

To fix the problem of hi jacking aircraft. All they had to do was put a remote control kill switch in the aircraft that would turn off the controls to the pilots flying the aircraft.

They also put a transponder on all of the large air craft.

Because they have a on board transponder. The plane is being tracked not only by radar but also by way of the transponder signal.

If that plane gets off courts. It lets the people on the ground know about. In turn the people on the ground call the aircraft up by way of radio.

If there is no respond or if the pilots can convinces the people on the ground of why they are off course.

They are directed to land the aircraft as soon as possible. And if they don’t.

The people on the ground kick in the kill switch and the people on the ground take over the flight controls of the air craft. And the air plane is landed by way of remote control.

Just like they do a drown.

Since the day of Regan 30 + years now. There has not’t been one hi-jacking.
Why. Well. We know why. They made it imposable to hi-jack a air plane.

If this is so. And it is. How is it that after 30 + years of no hi-jacking.

On 9/11 there was four hi-jacked aircraft all on the same day?

The answer is simple. There was not’t any aircraft that were hi-jacked on 9/11.

There wans’t any air planes.

No planes. That’s right. No planes.

Your probably asking your self. Now how would I know that there was not’t any air planes that crashed on 9/11

Simple. The same way that every body else knows.

Preventive Maintained.

Over hall and repair.

The replacement of high time parts.

G.E. makes the jet engines the planes that crashed on 9/11 have on them.

The jet engines are high time parts.
They keep a record of how many they have built. All of these engines have a serial number on them . Just like all one dollars bills have a serial number on them

Each one of those engines has it’s very own personal file kept on it.

That file has in it the history of that jet engine. That goes back 20 years.

It can tell you how many times it has been taken off a planes and sent back to G.E. to be tore down and rebuilt from the ground up. The history of all the different air planes it was put on.

Ever time one of those plane goes into the shop. The jet engines that are taken off the plane is replaced with a different engine and the old engine is sent back to G.E. to be repaired.

The people the keep track of the records say that all of the engines that G.E. has every built to go on that kind of aircraft. Are all accounted for. G.E. has no missing jet engines.

G.E. has just as many jet engines a year before 9/11 as they did a year after 9/11.

No Jet Engines that G.E. ever made that has come up missing on 9/11.

What this means in plain English is.

There are no planes that crashed on 9/11.

What this also meant is that the people that master minded the events of 9/11 were complete idiotic

They did not’t know that you can’t fake a planes crash and make it stick.

There is just to big of a paper trail. That can’t be fabricated. To many people involved. You can’t fake or fabricate the history of a large commercial passenger jet air craft. Or an air craft crash.

It’s not the evidence that can be fabricated or faked. It’s the evidence that can’t not be fabricated or faked,

That get’s them every time. In the end.

End of story.

[SDuderstadt]

160. I would love to read this now, but...

I can "not't" because I am headed out to the "air port" to catch an "air plain".

Serious question, Larry. When we don't see you around here for a while, is because you're on a "mission"?

[Larry L. Burks]

161. How did you know that?

Makes you wonder what I do in my spare time.

[SDuderstadt]

162. Because you're always writing in some code...

apparently known only to you, dude.

[Larry L. Burks]

163. You don't know half of it.

And your not going to get a chance to find out about it till after it's to late. We are networking about No Planes and DEW. By way of those secret hidden off shore web pages.

You have to be at the right place at the right time. To read about the hidden message. By the time you find out about them. They are gone all ready. They come and then they go. That's the key. Now you see me. Now you don't

It really hard to find a web page that is not there. Right.

Got to go now. I don't wont to be late. By.

[zappaman]

164. Actually

you no we are watching, write?

[SDuderstadt]

165. Don't ever change, Larry...

you're a one-man entertainment force.

Hopefully, you don't make your living by teaching English as a second language.

[snooper2]

167. "study gravity and how to manipulate"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mrarundale]

168. Strong evidence for NO PLANES

El- fakeo -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJXfIOEQB8M

[Larry L. Burks]

169. Here is what you are looking for.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=A429291&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

It's along ways down the page. But they are talking about remote-controlled planes from the ground.

Sure they are real. This is why we haven't had a hi-jacking in 30 years.

And we also know this is why there was no hi-jacking on 9/11.

Any time one of those planes goes off course. The people on the ground are in the driver's seat.

They will land that plane.

[zappaman]

170. that explains why we have had no hijackings in 30 years!

Outstanding info, Larry!
Keep it coming!