Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Were the 9/11 Aircraft Electronically Hijacked and Remotely Controlled?
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/11 ... acked-and-remotely-controlled/
Published: Nov 24, 2022
Author: Dan Hanley
Post Date: 2022-11-24 10:45:03 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 2035
Comments: 49

According to the global grassroots organization 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers website (https://911pilots.org/), there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9/11 aircraft but that these aircraft were electronically hijacked and remotely controlled through employment of a system called the uninterruptible autopilot that enables a remote source to take complete control of the aircraft autopilot and flight management computer and remotely guide it to its target destination. Once engaged, the pilots cannot disconnect this system.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the alleged hijackers had never flown the sophisticated B-757 and B-767 aircraft in their lives but were mainly trained in light, single engine Cessna 172s and the like.

This would be akin to only having driven your family automobile and climbing into a huge 18-wheeler semi-tractor trailer that you had never driven before, getting it up to a very high speed, and driving it through a garage without scraping the sides of the truck or hopping into a formula one race car that you hadn’t driven before and keeping it on the track at a very high speed.

Just because one can pilot a Cessna 172 does not qualify one to pilot a large commercial jet aircraft at very high speeds. It just doesn’t work that way.

A comparison of the cockpit layout of these types of aircraft will demonstrate the ludicrousness of the official story. There is no way the hijackers could have climbed into the cockpits of the jet aircraft, interpret the instrumentation and flight navigation systems, and fly the aircraft to their designated targets.

So how did three of four aircraft flies from the point at which they were hijacked to where they flew with cruise missile precision into buildings on the first attempt in New York City and Washington, DC?

One must first review the origin and history of the remote control of large airborne aircraft before we continue.

Over 75-years ago, in 1944, toward the end of World War II, the US Army Air Corp launched Operation Aphrodite in Europe wherein old B-24 bomber aircraft were gutted out to lighten the weight of the aircraft, loaded with 30000 pounds of highly incendiary compound called Torpex, and remotely flown into targets in Europe. Pilots were required to make the takeoff but once airborne, they bailed out of the aircraft.

It should be noted that Joe Kennedy, JFK’s older brother, died on one such top secret missions when the aircraft exploded due to a malfunction before he could bail out of the aircraft.

There are other such examples of remote control of aircraft, but we will jump ahead forty years to 1984 where NASA and the FAA conducted a joint crash test experiment in a remote location using a large four engine B- 720 commercial jet aircraft loaded with only crash dummies and video cameras to test crew and passenger survivability in the event of a crash landing. The aircraft was flown by remote control several times around the traffic pattern before being intentionally crash landed.

Jumping ahead yet another ten years or so to the mid-90s, the uninterruptible autopilot system previously described was developed and produced as a device capable of remotely taking control of an airborne hijacked commercial jet and guiding to an auto landing at one of many airports in the world.

(The fact that this technology existed in the mid-90’s years before 9/11 is given by the testimony of an avionics technician who actually worked on this system that was installed on a B-757 aircraft).

Let us now take for example the hijacker of American Airlines flight 77 supposedly flown by 29-year-old Saudi Arabian hijacker Hani Hanjour who was described as a very poor student pilot that could barely speak English, a requirement to obtain a pilot license.

AA77 took off from Washington Dulles airport headed for the west coast. After leveling off at cruise altitude for a while, the aircraft made a U turn heading back towards Washington in a descent. According to the official narrative, at 7000 feet the aircraft commenced a 330-corkscrew turn descended to just a few feet off the surface without skidding it at over 500 mph to strike the Office of Naval Intelligence with military precision on its first attempt!

Digressing, in August 2001, just one month prior to 9/11. Hanjour attempted to rent a small, single-engine Cessna 172 from the Freeway airport in Maryland but was denied rental by the chief flight instructor there, Marcel Bernard, because he could not handle the aircraft! And yet, Hanjour was able to accomplish this amazing aerial feat on his first try.

Given that the alleged hijackers were unqualified to fly the aircraft that day, one must ask how the aircraft were hijacked and flown into buildings as reported by the 9/11 Commission?

The only viable explanation that can be offered is through employment of the uninterruptible autopilot system. How else could this have been accomplished? You be the judge.

In August, 2020, a Federal Aviation Administration whistleblower report was filed via the FAA Hotline by the 9/11 Pilot Whistleblowers members alleging the use of the uninterruptible autopilot on 9/11.

Initially, this federal aviation oversight agency was very receptive to the vast evidence provided and even assigned a Seattle-based FAA aeronautical engineer to handle the case until it was recognized the depth and breadth of the allegations being made.

Communications all but ceased with the exception of a few emails from the FAA that weakly attempted to refute these claims. Freedom of Information Act requests for relevant information indicated that the FAA was being less than truthful in their responses before communications ceased by this agency and the stonewalling began.

Consequently, over the next two years, letters and emails were sent, and phone calls were made to every relevant government office in Washington, including to the FAA Administrator, Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation Inspector General, US Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, FBI Director, the House Government Oversight Committee leadership. even President Biden and many others without responses!

Subsequently, appeals have been made to the Pakistani, Chinese, and Russian governments to review evidence and possibly commence an investigation into the lies of 9/11. If the US government is uninterested in investigating our assertions then perhaps a foreign government will.

Hani Hanjour could not fly a Cessna 172, never mind a B-757, a fact that was known by the 9/11 Commission and the FBI but totally ignored. One must ask why the US federal government continues to ignore this case. Again…you be the judge.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#1. To: Ada (#0)

Over 75-years ago, in 1944, toward the end of World War II, the US Army Air Corp launched Operation Aphrodite in Europe wherein old B-24 bomber aircraft were gutted out to lighten the weight of the aircraft, loaded with 30000 pounds of highly incendiary compound called Torpex, and remotely flown into targets in Europe. Pilots were required to make the takeoff but once airborne, they bailed out of the aircraft.

I have never, ever heard of this before and while I'll hear the evidence, it does not sound believable given there was no digital technology at the time.

Pinguinite  posted on  2022-11-24   10:50:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Pinguinite (#1)

Boeing received a patent for uninterruptable autopilot in 2006 but that doesn't mean it wasn't in existence before that.

Boeing Honeywell uninterruptible autopilot

Ada  posted on  2022-11-24   12:46:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Ada (#5)

autopilot in 2006

The chip was installed in all commercial aircraft in the 1990s to be activated in case of hijacking. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2022-11-24   18:22:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: BTP Holdings (#8)

To that suggestion, that simply installing a chip would make an aircraft capable of being remotely hijacked, I'd just say that a full remote control system would have to involve more than a chip. Because what's also needed is a 2-way communication system between the aircraft and the ground controllers. Controllers need to send signals to the aircraft that would be received by the RC system on board the plane, and they would need to be long range radio signals which would require a sufficient antenna to receive, and chips by themselves are not equipped with antennas. So how can a chip alone receive signals sent from at least 100 miles away? It needs access to an antenna.

A second needed component is a transmission unit on the chip or elsewhere in the aircraft to send feedback to the ground controllers so they know how to make avionics adjustments. Again, chips themselves don't have that capability, especially as it required a fair amount of electrical power to generate a signal that would need to travel some significant distance, as in, again, at least 100 miles, and even that wouldn't be good enough for a single ground control unit. Conceivably it could be done from a trailing aircraft, but it would still need a 5-20 mile range, I would say.

I would grant that it's possible for an airliner's existing radio capabilities might send sufficient info for controllers to know how to maneuver the aircraft, but that's still a question.

Furthermore, there needs to be built into the aircraft a means of disabling pilot control AND taking control. Again, a chip alone isn't going to do that. It could make the electronic decision to disable pilot controls, but what is the mechanism by which that would happen? What's also notable is that the 757 & 767 aircraft, used on 911, have cable controlled avionics, whereas the MD-380 is electronically controlled avionics, so the theory holds less weight with the 757 & 767 aircraft. Of course there are hydraulic assists with the 757 & 767 models which do leave room for some kind of electronic weak point for a remote hijacking, but that's still an extra challenge for a simple chip insert to deal with.

AirBus 380. Note the joystick controls to the left and right of the pilot dashboard. That's an electronically controlled flight system, where an electronic reading is done of the position of the joystick which is computer translated with the resulting signals sent to motors controlling the ailerons, elevators and rudders.

757: Note the large central controls. These aircraft have cables connecting the controls directly to the ailerons, elevators and rudder, albeit hydraulically assisted.

So the theory of a remote electronic takeover would work better with an airbus 380 than a 757/767.

Finally, after severing the pilot control of the aircraft, the chip would need to take over those same controls. That would required some other components be present in the aircraft that the chip would connect to, and such units would be hard to keep secret if they were on board all commercial aircraft.

Finally, the difficulty of steering an airliner into a skyscraper while flying it via remote control, without the benefit of a first person video by which to steer it, would be much more difficult, in my view, than having a relative novice on board pilot it directly with the benefit of seeing exactly where the building is.

So I'm very skeptical of the suggestion that a single chip added to an airliner would make it capable of a remote takeover. An entire RC takeover system would involve a lot more components than a single chip.

To be clear, I am quite skeptical of the official 911 story for several reasons, and the possibility it was, at least in part, an inside government operation is very significant and plausible. But the remote control take-over theory is one I don't think holds much water. To me, the gov plot to pull off 911 would involve covertly working with Islamic extremists to do the deed -- without them even knowing they were working with the CIA -- and at all times along the way, again covertly ensuring admission to the USA was approved, that they were able to get into flight schools, that the plan was being hatched well, perhaps even planting thermite into the WTC towers, but otherwise allowing the plot to go forward with the hijackers making decisions about which flights to hijack, the exact day that was chosen and all that. So in the end, the islamic extremist guys that pulled off the hijacking thought they were striking a blow to their Great Satan of US imperialism when in fact, they were doing exactly what US intelligence manipulated and tricked them into doing.

Then when it happens, there is far less to clean up in the aftermath that could give things away. The hijackers are real, OBL is real, witnesses are all incriminating them, evidence of the Islamic plot abounds everywhere, hell, the FBI doesn't even have to be any wiser, as though they weren't already corrupt.

And to top it off, in the aftermath, the CIA simply starts to dump all kinds of fake conspiracy theories on the internet that are completely bogus which adequately obfuscates and discredits by association the few theories that are spot on or close to it.

To me, THAT is a theory of a gov sponsored conspiracy that makes the most sense. If they wanted an event that would reshape the political sentiments of the American public, THAT is how they would go about making it happen.

Pinguinite  posted on  2022-11-24   19:38:21 ET  (2 images) Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Pinguinite (#9) (Edited)

In order to get an absolute clear picture we would need to see the original patents for the QRS-11 gyrochip.

The ground control units can be a few hundred miles away and still take over the airliner controls.

Then we have the question of simulated air raft intercepts during that same time frame those aircraft were diverted.

It all comes back to the "dancing Israelis" in New Jersey. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2022-11-24   20:43:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: BTP Holdings (#12) (Edited)

You mean like the van full of instant suspects because they "looked Palestinian" as the lamestream media reported all day? ;)

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2022-11-25   0:39:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: NeoconsNailed (#13)

van full of instant suspects

Bomb sniffing dogs had a positive reaction that there had been bomb making materials in that van. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2022-11-25   10:40:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: BTP Holdings (#15)

Of course they did. All Palestinians and other Ayrab types spend EVERY DAY making bombs!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2022-11-25   11:57:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: NeoconsNailed (#16)

making bombs

This event happened on 9-11-2001. And Neil Bush (those Bushes) was in charge of security for Securacom. ;)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2022-11-25   12:18:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: BTP Holdings (#17)

Marvin Bush -- my cousin's godson :[

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2022-11-25   12:24:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)

Marvin Bush

My mistake.

But is he really your cousins Godson? ;(

BTP Holdings  posted on  2022-11-25   12:32:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

#22. To: BTP Holdings (#20) (Edited)

Yep en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/FitzGerald_Bemiss

HAAAA, " ;( " -- that's really funny!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2022-11-25 13:45:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest