DID ISRAEL Electronically Hijack the 9/11 PLANES?

The sources made up stuff about remote control planes; why? Totally impossible to take line aircraft and modify the software overnight to fly the plane (practically; in reality you can do anything you want, this would take so many people and equipment not even made yet for the 757/767; if anyone does not understand how a pilot can defeat this, they need to become a 757/767 pilot). One small problem is the pilot. The pilot can inspect the entire plane at will; just one small problem or change, he is not taking a jet modified or different; this is a fact; gee they do not even take a plane with broken storage doors. This is one of the least likely conspiracies, not even good science fiction for a 757/767 airframe. And the FDRs of 93 and 77 prove these conspiracy ideas wrong. But why do people who hate groups of people make up the most fantastic conspiracy ideas? Now that is a conspiracy worthy of investigating!

This would be one of the more far out conspiracies. Too bad none of the scenarios are backed by reality. Poor reality based fiction, but someone could buy it if they had no knowledge of flying and avionics systems.

No Israel did not electronically hijack the planes. Terrorist did it by hand. Evidence is the key. [edit on 23-2-2008 by beachnut]

[edit on 23-2-2008 by beachnut]

[edit on 23-2-2008 by beachnut]

reply to post by beachnut



What proof do you have that any of that makes any sense at all? Everything you said is wrong and inaccurate and not in evidence. Stop the tired old ' Jew hater ' nonsense..why are you trying to link anti-Semitism with the MANY MANY FACTS that point to Israeli involvement? If you IGNORE all the evidence and just scream silly nonsense about Jews instead of telling us WHY your opnions about remote control ability have ANY validity.

Are you an expert on remote systems, particularly those developed by the DOV ZAKHEIM company? Think DANIEL LEWIN was shot in the head like the FBI says, or was he stabbed like Amy Sweeny says? Do you ever research or just look for a chance to shout some silly slogan about the poor Jews..it is ZIONISTS and NEOCONS, not Jews. Religion has zero to do with this: only a political animal murders for money, not a religious one.

Money and control, that is the gaame. Who is the main players? The Arabs? please. read and study and then come back after you drop the persecution complex and learn about what happened that day. You are toooo shallow to compete here....come back later.

reply to post by space cadet

Originally posted by space cadet
. . . most of those who want to believe it is an inside job are not even living or from America, and have no firsthand knowledge of the events of that day, or the events leading to the war in Iraq.

Space cadet, the reason for that is that:

(a) Most people, statistically, are not from the US.

(b) Most people, statistically, have no firsthand knowledge of the events of the day.

(c) Most people, statistically, have no firsthand knowledge of the events leading to the Iraq war.

What is true in the world as a whole is going to be true on ATS.

I am an American, and I watched live television as the events of 911 unfolded, I had family in both Washington and New York.

What you are saying is that you also have no firsthand knowledge of the things you refer to above.

Space cadet, I sense pain in your post. I am not American but I empathize with you. I have said some pretty harsh things about America in this forum. I have said some nice things too. I am not trying to arouse hatred of America. I am trying to understand what happened on 9/11 and help other people understand it too. Some of the things you read on this forum sound crazy, but when you look into them you can understand why people say them and understand that some of these crazy things might be true.

Remember, it wasn't only people in New York who lost their lives because of 9/11.

Proof that Israel was part of 9.11

Originally posted by AMTMAN
If you had bothered to do a little research you would have realized that a lot of Arab media outlets say all kinds of things about Israel, and Jews, that are not true.

Well if you done any research you would see its an open source governemnt document.

reply to post by IvanZana


So you really believe everything you see on U TUBE? Do you see U TUBE as the ultimate source for information about world events? I would not place any measure of truth to any video made for that particular forum, anything goes on U TUBE, imagine, the same site is home to many a 'girl gone wild', but you see it as a genuine authority on 9/11. What is wrong with that picture?

The way I see it, the biggest conspiracy about 9/11 would be that people twist the truth constantly perpetuating anti American Government propaganda.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by space cadet]

Remote controlled technology was used in World War 2.

They used remote control aircraft as weapons.




[edit on 25-2-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Boone 870

Do you have the link?

How does being able to make an airliner crash equate into being able to take over and remotely control it?

Its a open source government document.

Well this is just 1 document. There are other reports and links that show that taking over a airliner by remote control is possible.

For instance the British have a system in 1 of thier Tornado fighters that can take over the contols of a hijacked plane by remote control.



[edit on 23-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Really, how is it possible? People like you like to harp on remote operation. However you leave the part out where those aircraft have been modified for remote operation. There is no system in existance that would allow anyone to take over an airliner without that aircraft having been modified. In other words unless an airline purposely modifies it's aircraft it is not going to happen. Do your homework.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by AMTMAN
If you had bothered to do a little research you would have realized that a lot of Arab media outlets say all kinds of things about Israel, and Jews, that are not true.

Well if you done any research you would see its an open source governemnt document.

Do you have a link to this open source govenment document? It's rather funny that you don't believe the 9-11 commision report yet will believe a govenment document from Eygypt. That's assuming of course that document actually exists.

reply to post by IvanZana


You still don't get do you. Those aircraft were purposely modified. There's was no electronic takeover of the four aircraft on 9-11.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
reply to post by beachnut

 

What proof do you have that any of that makes any sense at all? Everything you said is wrong and inaccurate and not in evidence. Stop the tired old ' Jew hater ' nonsense..why are you trying to link anti-Semitism with the MANY MANY FACTS that point to Israeli involvement? If you IGNORE all the evidence and just scream silly nonsense about Jews instead of telling us WHY your opnions about remote control ability have ANY validity.

Are you an expert on remote systems, particularly those developed by the DOV ZAKHEIM company? Think DANIEL LEWIN was shot in the head like the FBI says, or was he stabbed like Amy Sweeny says? Do you ever research or just look for a chance to shout some silly slogan about the poor Jews..it is ZIONISTS and NEOCONS, not Jews. Religion has zero to do with this: only a political animal murders for money, not a religious one.

Money and control, that is the gaame. Who is the main players? The Arabs? please. read and study and then come back after you drop the persecution complex and learn about what happened that day. You are toooo shallow to compete here....come back later.

Why don't you point to one fact. Then why don't you tell me how this remote system works since you seem to be the expert.

Originally posted by AMTMAN: There is no system in existance that would allow anyone to take over an airliner without that aircraft having been modified. In other words unless an airline purposely modifies it's aircraft it is not going to happen. Do your homework.

Just to address the technical aspects of how remote control of an airliner would be achieved unknown to the airline involved. According to David Hawkins of www.hawkscafe.com... ,Boeing, a leading defense industry contractor, has been illegally outfitting airliners with a military grade gyrochip that allows for remote control of the airliner that is impossible for a pilot to override. (See content below.) He says that Lufthansa is one airline that found out about it and had technicians take the chips out.

Hawkins believes that airliners with that chip were used on 9/11. He believes that further modifications to the planes were made by a company that specializes in such things in British Columbia.

These modified planes were then folded into the scenario on 9/11 using the Iridium66 satellite communications network. He has a lot of detailed info on this on his website.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

QRS-11 gyrochip

Between 2000 and 2003, Boeing exported commercial jets with a QRS-11 gyrochip in the instrument flight boxes, even though the chip was classified by the State Department as an export-restricted defense item because it can be used to stabilize and steer guided missile

www.straightaero.com...

Are Boeing fitting their aircraft with illegal devices that could enable terrorists to remotely hijack airliners and crash them into high profile targets? In light of what happened on 9/11, Boeing's blanket denial that this practice has taken place is both highly suspicious and a threat to national security . . .

According to the Seattle Times, "The QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., is just over 1-½ inches in diameter and weighs about 2 ounces. It sells for between $1,000 and $2,000. Described as "a gyro on a chip," it is used to help control the flight of missiles and aircraft." . . .

Recent newspaper reports discussing these devices and the policy to have them in all airliners within three years assure us that they would prevent another 9/11 style outrage - but because anysuch system is vulnerable to hacking allied with the fact that pilots have no way of overriding the autopilot, not even with secure access codes, this only increases the chances of another 9/11 style attack.

A comprehensive investigation on behalf of those who have the authority and resources to perform it needs to be mandated immediately into whether devices that completely remove control of a plane from the pilot and that have illegally been installed in many existing aircraft are a fundamental danger to national security.

Description of the Iridium66 communications system:

www.hawkscafe.com...

I just wanted to ad a postscript to the above. Hawkins has an elaborately developed scenario to explain the motives and aims of the perps on 9/11. They are quite different from what most CT'ers would imagine. I don't know whether to buy his line of thinking or not. On the technical side, however, he sticks very close to things which, though murky, are being looked into by others as well. One very important fact to consider is the very tight relationship between Boeing and the DOD.

Hawkins believes that three or four other highly suspicious crashes of airliners around the globe may be related to the presence of the special gyro chip being discussed.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by AMTMAN
It's rather funny that you don't believe the 9-11 commision report yet will believe a govenment document from Eygypt. That's assuming of course that document actually exists.

Becasue people on the 9/11 commission have stated they did not have enough tome or money to do a proper investigation.

reply to post by ULTIMA1



I'll ask you again why are you so quick to believe an Eygyptian government document? Also where is this document? And if it exists how does it prove anything?

reply to post by ipsedixit


Just to let you know I work on commercial aircraft for a living so please forgive me when I say Mr. Hawkins and his friend Captain McConnell are full of it. Since the subject of this thread is about Israeli involvment do you know Captain McConnell thinks its? Here's a hint, its not Israel.


"He says that Lufthansa is one airline that found out about it and had technicians take the chips out."

Really, does he have any proff of this? On what equipment was this chip installed? Do you know the expense of doing such a thing?

Do you actually read the links you post?

< seattletimes.nwsource.com... >

Are you trying to prove something by posting this? In case you did not know Mr. Bain was refering to the USAF tanker scandal and Boeing illegally obtaining LM propreitary information. Which by the way they paid a $615 million dollar fine over. And no it was not to stop a DOJ investigation like he says it was.

I've read both Mr Hawkins and Captains McConnell's ramblings and all I'll say is that they are beyond gone.

Originally posted by AMTMAN

Do you actually read the links you post?

< seattletimes.nwsource.com... >

Are you trying to prove something by posting this?

AMTY, I think you are going off half cocked. The first quote above is from the article you are referring to. There is some ad material in the middle of the article. I suggest you scroll past it like the efficient and astute airplane guy you are and read the whole article.

Another thing. Can you just stick to facts and skip the whole ad hominem thing? It's really getting old. And yes I know Hawkins doesn't think that Israel did it.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by ipsedixit



How is asking you if you read your links ad hom? Sounds like a legit question to me.

I've read the whole article before. Could you please tell how this supports Mr. Hawkins statements? Please tell how that chip "allows for remote control of the airliner that is impossible for a pilot to override". And don't tell me because Mr. Hawkins says so. Also what about Lufthansa? Did you ever find out what I asked?

"Can you just stick to facts"

And what facts have you provided?

Originally posted by AMTMAN
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

Please tell how that chip "allows for remote control of the airliner that is impossible for a pilot to override".

NORAD, Masters Of Remote Control
Since 1959, NORAD personnel have been installing remote control units in a variety of aircraft and remotely controlling those aircraft in sophisticated aeronautical maneuvers, including combat practice. See "Thwarting skyjackings from the ground," written by Alan Staats for Facsnet, and posted on October 2, 2001. (Facsnet is an education service provided for its reporters by Associated Press.)

www.facsnet.org...
or
www.Public-Action.com...
(Look at paragraph entitled "History on remote control.")

"Controlling the aircraft from the ground is nothing new. The military has been flying obsolete high performance fighter aircraft as target drones since the 1950s. In fact, NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program known as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them."

Re-read that final sentence in the above quote:

"These [NORAD] aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control … "

Given over 40 years of institutional experience, flying remotely controlled "suicide" jets into the World Trade Center towers would have been a piece of cake for NORAD. This information puts NORAD's failure to protect our skies on September 11, 2001 in a new light.

www.public-action.com...

AMTMAN, maybe you aren't used to talking things over with people who are not as knowledgeable as you imply that you are.

The links already posted by me give the part name of the gyro chip that could be used to control an aircraft and which is believed to have been installed illegally by Boeing on some airliners starting in the year 2000. In the quotations it is stated or implied that such control would not be able to be over-ridden by the pilots. There is also a link to a description of satellite communications software that could be used to take control of the airplanes.

The Seattle Times article is coverage of a speech given to Boeing execs by the company's own chief legal counsel, basically lecturing them about how they should be careful of how they do business because they could (in a worst case scenario) be liable for as much as $5 billion in damages related to their business practices.

You have very arrogantly told us all that modifying an aircraft for remote control could not be done without an airline's knowledge. I think anyone in this day and age would have trouble swallowing that one, especially given the corporate culture at Boeing.

I don't generally complain about people on these threads but your whole tone is obnoxious. This is after all just an internet forum. Some people here are genuine experts in various subjects but most people are operating on common sense.

Browbeating and baiting people in these discussions just weakens your arguments. People would take your arguments more seriously if you would post facts in opposition. If you want to give an opinion, that's fine but don't say something authoritatively without some sort of authoritative citation. 'I work in the aircraft industry.' doesn't cut it.


[edit on 25-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.
The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.

Boeing says: "We are constantly studying ways we can enhance the safety, security and effiecency of the world's airline fleet."

“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing,” the patent authors write. “In particular, there is a need for a technique that ensures the continuation of the desired path of travel of a vehicle by removing any type of human decision process that may be influenced by the circumstances of the situation, including threats or further violence onboard the vehicle.”

According to the patent, existing preventative measures are less than fullproof – pilots can decide to open the lockable, bullet-proof cockpit doors and federal air marshals can be overpowered and de-armed. Boeing’s alternative has an onboard processor that once activated, disallows pilot inputs and prevents anyone on board from interrupting an emergency landing plan that can be predefined or radioed to the aircraft by airline or government controllers and carried out by the aircraft’s guidance and control system. To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.

Boeing envisions several methods of activating the system. Options include manual switches for pilots to hit, or possibly force sensors on the cockpit door that would trip the anti-terror mode if a minimum force threshold were crossed, for instance if someone were trying to break down the door. Another option is a remote link whereby airline or government workers in ground facilities would monitor and aircraft and command the automatic control mode “once it is determined that the security of the air vehicle is in jeopardy.” Radio links could also be used to inform ground facilities and nearby aircraft that an aircraft has been placed in the automatic flight mode.

It’s unclear if the Boeing work is related to last week’s issuance of a $1.9 million US Federal Aviation Administration contract to Raytheon for an Advanced Route Evaluation System (ARES). According to Raytheon, ARES will perform risk analysis on aviation routes to help planners determine the best routes for aircraft to use during emergencies.”

Aside from the safety and security aspects of having such a system, Boeing sees it as a preventative measure: “Once the automatic control system provided by the present invention is initiated, no one on board the air vehicle is capable controlling the flight to the air vehicle, such that it would be useless for anyone to threaten violence in order to gain control the air vehicle.”

www.freerepublic.com...

Negative terrorism hype aside, flying is still a very safe mode of transport. The only real danger is being beaten to dearth by a group of radical environmentalists for polluting the atmosphere.

Boeing, though, is taking no chances and thinks its latest autopilot is the perfect answer to anti-terrorism. Classed as a 9/11-proof system, it will stop terrorists from flying the plane into land or sea targets and can be remotely landed by ground-staff. Once activated, it cannot be deactivated.

The captain can activate the system manually or - and this is the bit I have some concern with - it can activate itself when sensors fitted to the cockpit door record excessive force – like terrorists trying to break in.

Hmm, what happens if turbulence causes someone to fall against the door, a drunk passenger needs to tell the captain something really, really important, or a rogue drinks trolley hits it? Boeing could have these in all planes with three years, according to insiders.-Martin Lynch