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

Originally posted by AMTMAN

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.

How amazing that you know what is actually on my mind better than I do!! You should take on Criss Angel and get his million bucks by reading HIS mind as well!!

If I had thought that some RELIGIOUS entity had pulled 9-11 off, I would have said so..thank you very much. But, I do NOT believe that JEWS as such had any more knowledge than anyone else as to the events of that day...BUT it is apparent and clear to any thinking person that the Mossad had a hand in it all, and the fact that the Mossad is primarily a Jewish organization means nothing at all. The ' 5 dancing Israelis ' that were arrested and deported ( By Chertoff ) went home to Israel and promptly held a news conference where they said that they " had been sent to film the event ", which means that the Mossad knew in advance about the attacks. The men were Mossad agents.

So, the State of Israel had a hand in survelliing the Arabs that were the fall guys, and no doubt had a hand in the entire operation as well. And the fromer Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu, said that the 9-11 attacks were ' a very good thing ' for Israel. He is the guy who was warned about the 7/7 London bombings in advanve as well.

So, you will NOT get to nag some alleged Jew hater today, as I hate NO ONE. At least not due to their religion or heritage as a Semite or any other. You are pulling the same tired old trick: Anytime anyone rightfully points out the crimes of the state of Israel, you immediately jump on the ' Jew Hater ' bandwagon to try and cover up the truth.It is like saying that the Vatican is guilty of some crime, and having someone like you say that they are bashing Catholics..it is nonsense and intellectually dishonest as well as quite transparent.

I call 'em as I see's um!! And that means that Israelis do not get a free pass on crimes against humanity just because they are Jews. It is far past the holocaust era and no longer can cries of ' Jew hater ' be dealt out like so many playing cards to anyone who dares to tell the truth about the horrendous crimes committed by the State of Israel. I have NO DOUBT that the Israelis played a major part in the inside job that was 9-11: Who better to set up the charges and take opver the planes and such? They can sooth their conciences ( if they have any at all ) by telling themselves that it is for ' God and country '....a good thing for the long run even if innocent thousands are killed for the plan to proceed.

So NEVER again try and tell me what I am thinking, or alluding to, or what is on my mind..I can express what I believe quite well and there is nothing I will hold back if I believe it, including the religious beliefs of criminals and murderers. If a Moslem committes some act, everyone screams about the Muslims and such...but if it comes top a Jew, God forbid anyone even hint that they might be dirty: Who says that Jews have an exclusive on being able to get away with anything they want just because they have had a bad time of it historically?

NOT JEWS!!.. ISRAELIS!! The political arm of the state of Israel is the issue, NOT the religious practices of the people....so next time try and besmirch someone who is less able to see thru your nonsense.

I think it is common knowledge that they can program a planes flight path and it will fly itself, Its called auto pilot. What I would like to see are the sources stating it can land and take off as well. In addition provide the source that explains how the pilot is unable to over ride computer control. What if for what ever reason the pilot needs to turn around or crash land. What if the pilot needs to pull a higher G maneuver than the computer will allow, say to avoid an other plane. It doesn't make sense and I don't believe that the pilot cannot override computer control.

Also how does the lack of distress calls mean remote taking? Are we to believe that the radio was knocked out when control was taken, or that no one was on the plane?

Here is some info for you to read thoroughly, since you asked, that details some of the info about remote flight capabilities.

www.geocities.com...

And:

911review.com...

And:

prisonplanet.com...

As to your question as to WHY the lack of radio calls translates to a remote taking, here is why:

If the planes were NOT remotely taken, then please explain HOW in the world in all FOUR cases of highjacking that day, not ONE of the EIGHT pilots was able to key the microphone button and radio an alert? Are we to believe that in all FOUR airplanes the highjackers were able to overwhelm the cockpits INSTANTLY and cut off any chance at the pilots being able to even move a finger? Do you believe that? I don't. I also do not believe that there is any way that in all four aircraft takins, not ONE pilot was able to move his finger on the yoke a fraction of an inch and press the button and announce trouble. Either the ' highjackers ' were superhumans with speed beyond belief, or the planes were taken remotely. There are NO other ways it could be.

A remote taking answers ALL of the strange anomalies associated with the taking of the planes: the INSTANT nature of the cockpit takeovers, the total lack of even ONE pilot among EIGHT being able to send a signal, the obvious ability of the highjackers ( if the official story were true) to penetrate the cockpits and remove eight struggling and determined pilots from the cramped confines of the cockpiots, BEFORE ANY of them could move a finger!! Really!! We are asked to believe THAT?? Amazing nerve
the perps have, just amazing.

So, you now know that the remote taking was POSSIBLE and LIKELY given ALL of the facts and circumstances surrounding this event. If it was NOT a remote taking, then we still have to figure out HOW all of the facts could be explained...and they cannot unless remote taking is the answer.

originally posted by eyewitness 86
If the planes were NOT remotely taken, then please explain HOW in the world in all FOUR cases of highjacking that day, not ONE of the EIGHT pilots was able to key the microphone button and radio an alert?

Flight 93 did twice.

We've been over this before eyewitness 86. Why do you continually ignore it?

Please don't go on a six paragraph rant like always. A simple reply will do just fine.

Double post

[edit on 23-11-2007 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by Boone 870
Flight 93 did twice.

Do you know for sure it was the pilot of Flight 93?

What about the other 6 pilots?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


The pilot's wife listened to the tape and she never claimed that it wasn't her husband.

What about them? I've shown you in other threads that it is not always a pilot's first reaction to key the microphone during a hijack.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The pilot's wife listened to the tape and she never claimed that it wasn't her husband.

What about them? I've shown you in other threads that it is not always a pilot's first reaction to key the microphone during a hijack.

No, she stated she believed it was him, she did not state it was him.

Unless the hijackers were in the cockpits in under 4 seconds the pilots had a chance to get off a call or signal..

reply to post by eyewitness86


Thank you for proving my point.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Here is some info for you to read thoroughly, since you asked, that details some of the info about remote flight capabilities.

www.geocities.com...

And:

911review.com...

And:

prisonplanet.com...

As to your question as to WHY the lack of radio calls translates to a remote taking, here is why:

If the planes were NOT remotely taken, then please explain HOW in the world in all FOUR cases of highjacking that day, not ONE of the EIGHT pilots was able to key the microphone button and radio an alert? Are we to believe that in all FOUR airplanes the highjackers were able to overwhelm the cockpits INSTANTLY and cut off any chance at the pilots being able to even move a finger? Do you believe that? I don't. I also do not believe that there is any way that in all four aircraft takins, not ONE pilot was able to move his finger on the yoke a fraction of an inch and press the button and announce trouble. Either the ' highjackers ' were superhumans with speed beyond belief, or the planes were taken remotely. There are NO other ways it could be.

A remote taking answers ALL of the strange anomalies associated with the taking of the planes: the INSTANT nature of the cockpit takeovers, the total lack of even ONE pilot among EIGHT being able to send a signal, the obvious ability of the highjackers ( if the official story were true) to penetrate the cockpits and remove eight struggling and determined pilots from the cramped confines of the cockpiots, BEFORE ANY of them could move a finger!! Really!! We are asked to believe THAT?? Amazing nerve
the perps have, just amazing.

So, you now know that the remote taking was POSSIBLE and LIKELY given ALL of the facts and circumstances surrounding this event. If it was NOT a remote taking, then we still have to figure out HOW all of the facts could be explained...and they cannot unless remote taking is the answer.

How much do you know about commerical aircraft? Reading your inane rants I'm guessing not much. The original OP is a bunch of garbage, pure and simple. If you knew anything about commercial aricraft you would know the whole idea of a remote takeover of a 757 or 767 is nothing more than a parnoid fantasy.

originally posted by ULTIMA1
Unless the hijackers were in the cockpits in under 4 seconds the pilots had a chance to get off a call or signal..

How long do you think it would take them to get into the cockpit?

Let's say they didn't use the key to unlock the door. Two hijackers with box cutters walk up to the door and kick it in. How long would it take them to advance the few feet to the pilots?

Originally posted by Boone 870
How long do you think it would take them to get into the cockpit?

Well figure the amount of time it took the passengers of Flight 93 to get into the cockpit with a cart?



[edit on 23-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Boone 870

originally posted by ULTIMA1
Unless the hijackers were in the cockpits in under 4 seconds the pilots had a chance to get off a call or signal..

How long do you think it would take them to get into the cockpit?

Let's say they didn't use the key to unlock the door. Two hijackers with box cutters walk up to the door and kick it in. How long would it take them to advance the few feet to the pilots?

Having been in the cockpits of both the 757 and 767 once you open that door you can be on top of the captains and FO's seat in about two seconds.

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Having been in the cockpits of both the 757 and 767 once you open that door you can be on top of the captains and FO's seat in about two seconds.

But how long would it take you to get through the door?

reply to post by AMTMAN


AMTMAN,

I'm assuming that you have worked on 757/767's, correct?

What do you know about the Boeing key?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


The hijackers didn't use a cart. Also, according to the CVR transcripts, the hijackers were trying to keep them out.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The hijackers didn't use a cart.

Oh so the pilots just let the hijakers in.. They did not have to worry with a locked door?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I doubt if they invited them in.

Remember the Boeing key. The doors can be unlocked from the outside and FAA regulations required that flight attendants had to have a key on them or that the aircraft had to have a cockpit door key placed in an easily accessible location in case of an in-flight emergency.

I'm hoping that AMTMAN can shed a little light on the subject.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Remember the Boeing key. The doors can be unlocked from the outside and FAA regulations required that flight attendants had to have a key on them or that the aircraft had to have a cockpit door key placed in an easily accessible location in case of an in-flight emergency.

But is there evidence they used a key or break in ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Not that I recall. Mary Schiavo from the NTSB mentioned it as a possibility during the 9/11 commission hearings.

There have been instances of where unruly passengers forced the cockpit door open on other commercial aircraft.