757/767 remote control flight...terrorists didnt do it

reply to post by super D


super D, I wasn't dropping that 'cop-out' line at you, just responding to my overall aire of anger towards this whole thing.

Want links about Oil Cheney? Mis-rep'd the country for this war and should the Senate be smart, they'd use the 9$ trillion deficit to rid us of both of them!

As per the S11 conspiracies, what's your take on what transpired?

Here is a report that Israel may have caused an airliner to crash using a remote system to control the autopilot.

Document ID: GMP20040309000197
Content Type:
Version Number: 01

Region: Near East/South Asia
Sub-Region: Arab Africa, Near East
Country: Egypt, Israel
Topic: DOMESTIC POLITICAL, OTHER
Source-Date: 03/08/2004

Egypt: Report Accuses Israel of Causing Recent Plane Crash Near Sharm Al-Shaykh
GMP20040309000197 Cairo Al-Usbu in Arabic 08 Mar 04 p 1
[Unattributed article: "Israel Might Be Responsible for Sharm al-Shaykh Plane Crash"]

[FBIS Translated Text]
The likelihood that Israel was involved in the crash of an Egyptian airliner owned by Flash Airlines off the coast of Sharm al-Shaykh on 3 January through electronically jamming the aircraft's systems has increased. The analysis of the aircraft's black box indicates that the change in the plane's course, which led to the crash, occurred only four seconds after the autopilot was engaged. This means that switching the plane's controls to the autopilot device was the direct cause of the crash.

Israel has the technology and special equipment needed to manipulate the autopilot system. Technical sources specializing in the field of aviation indicate that Israel has invented a special system which could be planted in the autopilot program to enable parties on the ground to control the aircraft through a remote control device. According to those sources, the above-mentioned system could have been planted in the Boeing jet when it was being inspected and maintained in Norway immediately before the ill-fated flight. They added that the airliner was close enough to Israeli bases to allow the manipulation of the autopilot device from the ground. According to specialists, this is the most likely cause of the crash.

The systems to remotely take planes has been around for a long time; after the rash of highjackings for political purposes in the 60's and 70's the government decided to fix the problem by developing a system that would allow ground controllers to take and fly the planes equipped for such. The modern planes are set for this.

The limitations that are preset onto the computers on board can be over ridden easily enough: The ground controllers can disable or enable any function of the plane, including presets for stopping the plane from making radical maneuvers. That answers the questions about the plane not being able to do certain things..they COULD over come all internal presets.

The FACT that not ONE of EIGHT pilots were able to key the mike and announce an assault on the cockpits or a highjacking attempt means that the planes were taken REMOTELY. There is NO OTHER way to explain the instantaneous takeovers of all four planes. The brief transmission about ' Keep your seats, we have bombs " was part of the games..part of the plan..that transmission was NOT from Flt. 93. ALL of the flights that day were taken instantly, and that can only be done electronically.

Otherwise we have to accept odds so far out that they are laughable: What are the odds that all of the hundreds of ' inexplicable anomalies ' that are screaming for attention in this case are simply ' coincidence ' ? It staggers the sound mind to hear people invent incredible and nonsensical scenarios to try and support the fairy tales that the official story spins with a straight face.

Those planes were landed and the passengers disembarked into a hangar, then all passengers were taken on one plane and flown out to sea where some ship was no doubt told it was firing at a dummy target in the ' games ' and shot the aircraft down into the sea, gone forever. I believe that the GAMES are the key to it all; almost every fascet of this plan could be laid at the feet of the games...every act down to the final moments could have been included as a game play...think about the FACT that Cheney, the Neocon inside man, had the Pentagon stand down.

The Norman Mineta testimoney was no doubt the closest we have come to a red flag being waved in the publics face..but nothing happened, of course. Either Cheney is a liar and traitor and criminal of the worst sort, or Mineta was hallucinating or lying under oath at the 9-11 Commision hearings. What other choice is there? WHAT order? WHY has NO senator asked the ' young officer ' exactly what the ' order ' was that had them worried ? THIS IS A SMOKING GUN!! The fact that Cheney was ' fully in control ' at 8:30 am on 9-11, according to Mineta means that Cheney is a liar, and therefore guilty.

Also, the prominent Senator Biden says that he was asked point blank by Cheney, on two occasions, to hold NO hearings on 9-11..Cheney tried to get them to do away with ALL inquiries into 9-11; when Biden mentioned this, Cheney said that Biden was ' mistaken '. Biden insists that he is right. Cheney is in my opinion a totally evil and soulless man, a man headed to the infernal regions upon the demise of his fleshly body; the codtors are keeping his black heart going with technology but one day he will look up and see some very disturbing escorts waiting to take him to his rewards, his just desserts.

But for now, we can expose the murderers and traitors and hold their feet to the fire: They might as well get used to it!1 These rich men will howl and weep when they are exposed to the truth and a hloy God some day, but until then we must keep the heat on them and show the world that the coup that happened on 9-11 was an inside job all the way, and that the insulting official lie they spew is not worthy of a moments attention, much less serious consideration as an excuse for what transpired on 9-11.

Cheney is a twisted and demented man who sold his soul for filthy lucre long ago and now must avoid the justice that cries out for attention..the cold graves of the victims of this murderous enabling event also cry out for justice. They will never see it as long as supposedly intelligent people accept fairy tales as evidence, and conjecture as fact. May God open the eyes of the people to see how far we have fallen..

reply to post by eyewitness86


Bravo for this post! Cheney should be held accountable, let alone impeached, the both of them need to go. A Dennis K. impeachment bill gets laughed at my members of both sides?! How many ELECTED officials are traitors?!

While Rummy is running around w/ stolen $ trillions and bin Laden? Well, take this group for however you want to, but I believe he IS sitting in cell number 1313, and *they* will probably wheel his out for a holiday gift sooner or later.... then, that's all we'll hear about, *they* caught the bogey-man.

Should I ever 'disappear' or should *they* ever come by to kill me, don't say I/we weren't warned about how Nazi these 'leaders' truly are.

"they can see everything on Earth, w/ the satellites and roving drones"

[edit on 18-11-2007 by anhinga]

I believe this theory is more believable then some others.

The highjackers could have been allowed to do their work in taking over the planes and then the control system used to assure the planes hit the targets. This allows for evidence of a highjack.

Or, as someone else speculated, may be the passengers and crew were incapacitated and the planes were flown remotely.

This allows for a fairly seamless flow of events. The nice thing about computers and data is that it can all be arranged before hand and started at a given instant. May be throw in a bit on monitoring and corrections if needed.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Or, as someone else speculated, may be the passengers and crew were incapacitated and the planes were flown remotely.

As far as this part goes, how would they have been incapacitated? Gas perhaps? If so, how long would that take to install and has anyone ever checked on the history of that plane to see if it was out of action for any period of time?

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
As far as this part goes, how would they have been incapacitated? Gas perhaps? If so, how long would that take to install and has anyone ever checked on the history of that plane to see if it was out of action for any period of time?

www.cnn.com...

Pilots' accounts point to cabin pressure
The Air Force used fighter jets to shadow the doomed plane across the deep South and Midwest: They reported frost on the windows, indicating the cabin lost pressure sometime during the flight.

Pilots said when they flew alongside and looked inside the aircraft, the people inside appeared to be slumped over and incapacitated, CNN's Carl Rochelle reported.

Asked whether depressurization may have contributed to the crash, Francis said he would not speculate: "We'll tell you factual stuff as soon as we figure it out."

Air Force Capt. Chris Hamilton said there was nothing he could do when his F-16 caught up with the Learjet over Memphis, Tennessee.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
www.cnn.com...

Pilots' accounts point to cabin pressure
The Air Force used fighter jets to shadow the doomed plane across the deep South and Midwest: They reported frost on the windows, indicating the cabin lost pressure sometime during the flight.

Thank-you.

Do you have any ideas on how this could be done by remote? Or would something need to be smuggled aboard to explode for example?

reply to post by anhinga


Now I will cop-out...I need evidence one way or the other. As I have neither, I can only speculate. What I perceive, however, is a denial to the public to review all video footage...I do not like that idea...I do not believe airing the videos to be a threat to national security as we were already violated. I still want facts to make a coherent and complete decision on what I believe. Sorry I can not give you a convictionn one way or the other.

I'd like to throw another poke in the fire here

Since these planes have this capability of autopiloting
themselves with a remote controller/pilot.

Just what would be the chances that those same exact
systems being hacked by outside sources and taken
over by somebody else. Maybe the hijackers on 9/11
thought they were just getting their ransoms and
were tricked by their own people and remotely
flown into the towers. Aircraft auto pilots have
the capability to fly to an exact point (long/Lat)
so if you punch in those coordinates, the autopilot
will fly to that coordinate. Since the hijackers couldn't
land the plane don't mean they couldn't set down
somewhere by autopilot using the VOR. Maybe they
didn't realize what was going on til it was too late.
That's another scenario

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus

Thank-you.

Do you have any ideas on how this could be done by remote? Or would something need to be smuggled aboard to explode for example?

Well this was another plane. But all the hijackers had to do was mess with the cabin pressure and have everyone in the plane pass out.

reply to post by Zeta115
I would suspect that evidence of the use of the system would show up somewhere and the government would know of the break in. I also believe they would not talk about that situation happening. The evidence might be rework by airline manufacturers on those systems.

Edit: I think the encryption/etc and the system would make that highly unlikely unless something was acquired via the 'inside'.



[edit on 11/18/2007 by roadgravel]

Well, seeing that it is an ' inside job ' pretty much says it all: Obviously they had inside help in puling it off. The former Pentagon comptroller, Dov Zakheim, an ardent Neocon and dual Israeli citizenship who was responsible for the 2.3 trillion dollars said missing on 9-10-01 and forgotten about the next day when the plan went off.

Zakheim was also the head of the company ( Israeli of course ) that owned and operated the remote control systems, called Home Run in at least one form, and these systems could have been sold or given to anyone by simply putting the software in a pocket. No mystery as to how they got the planes to their destinations perfectly anmd how the systems ( cockpits ) were taken instantly as well. The flip of a switch.

originally posted by eyewitness 86
The FACT that not ONE of EIGHT pilots were able to key the mike and announce an assault on the cockpits or a highjacking attempt means that the planes were taken REMOTELY. There is NO OTHER way to explain the instantaneous takeovers of all four planes. The brief transmission about ' Keep your seats, we have bombs " was part of the games..part of the plan..that transmission was NOT from Flt. 93.

The pilots of flight 93 got off 2 calls. The terrorists radio calls were on the cockpit voice recorder from flight 93.

reply to post by Boone 870

2 calls??
Oh you mean the same recorder that the last 3 minutes
were erased from before sharing with the families?
If they can erase them ...... they can forge them

reply to post by Zeta115


Can you source that please?

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Well, seeing that it is an ' inside job ' pretty much says it all: Obviously they had inside help in puling it off. The former Pentagon comptroller, Dov Zakheim, an ardent Neocon and dual Israeli citizenship who was responsible for the 2.3 trillion dollars said missing on 9-10-01 and forgotten about the next day when the plan went off.

Zakheim was also the head of the company ( Israeli of course ) that owned and operated the remote control systems, called Home Run in at least one form, and these systems could have been sold or given to anyone by simply putting the software in a pocket. No mystery as to how they got the planes to their destinations perfectly anmd how the systems ( cockpits ) were taken instantly as well. The flip of a switch.

Why don't you just say what you really want to say. That is Jews, not Israeli.

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.

Completly rubbish. All modern Boeings have a Flight Management System
that is used to program a number of waypoints that makes a route.
The man/machine interface is called the Flight Management Computer.
The FMC commandes the aircraft flying the route thru the autopilot via L and VNAV or makes guidance for the pilot to handfly the route thru the Flight Director.
The route can and will be changed several times by the pilots during the flight, and in some stages of the flight the aircraft will be controlled via the Mode Control Panel that has priority over the FMC (radar vectoring during approach is one reason).
The 757/67 can not take off on autopilot, in my airline the procedure
is to handfly until at least 1000 ft AGL or clean up. (flaps retracted)
VNAV is notorious unreliable at lower speeds and with any flaps extended so most pilots dont engage AP until after cleanup.
757/67 have a fail operative autoland capability, but it takes pilot input to set the right frequency in the navradios and engage approach mode. It's CAT3-B certified, but few airports is kept CAT3, so that's why most landings must be handflown from a certain altitude to touchdown.

Also, the 757/67 is not fly by wire, it's hydromechanical operated just as the good old 707 and 727.
There's no software limitations of any kind that decides what kind of maneuvers the pilots can pull, the only limiting factor here is our pilot-training and common sense.


Kamikaze (Boeing driver for the last 32 years)

reply to post by Kamikaze905


Thanks for the post -- this seals the RC deal for me, they can take-off, then the 'autopilot' takes effect and like you said, landing capacity isn't really in reach, not like that mattered on S11.... autopilot takes over in flight, the planes are 'rigged' so the autopilot stays on, we hear no cockpit tapes or we only hear the ones from 'they Shank-vill-ed us' seem totally faked or that's the only tapes *they* will let us here, today, I'm still a believer in the RC planes, what happened to the passengers? Well, they could be all dead from the flight, I doubt they were led off and executed/witness protection, they either never existed in the first place or are all dead.... and we know how in cahoots Drug Jr is w/ bin Laden, the 'terror' might never of even been on the planes and like some stories allude to, they all could very well be alive.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by anhinga]

Originally posted by ATSGUY
I got this from a yahoo answers post, is it true that no one can over-ride the cockpit because of the software. So if this is true then how did the planes crash when it was taken over my a remote control.

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.

answers.yahoo.com...

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Another dead giveaway that this person does not know what he's talking about is when he referes to the 757 and 767 as "commuter" aircraft.