256 Passengers on 9-11: There were no commercial plane crashes on September 11, 2001 by Editor Mongoose Thanks to Alert Reader. EVERY supposed one of the 256 passengers on 9-11 paid...

Sicilianthing

There were no commercial plane crashes on September 11, 2001
by Editor

Mongoose
Thanks to Alert Reader.

EVERY supposed one of the 256 passengers on 9-11 paid for their tickets in cash on THE MORNING 0f 9-11! NOT ONE used a single credit card and there are no electronic receipts from anyone or any company anywhere in the world. Why? There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

Except for the supposed Atta and all of his massive incriminating evidence on a supposed suicide flight….NOT ONE single supposed passenger parked a car at any airport on 9-11 NOT ONE. Why? There were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11.

Babsan

Sicilianthing wrote:

There were no commercial plane crashes on Septembe... (show quote)

So what was flying into the towers?

woodguru

Babsan wrote:

So what was flying into the towers?

Look at the high resolution videos taken by news cameras that the CIA held until they got them back years later, you decide what those were. Also why did so many eye witnesses describe the planes as black?

My brother in law was in the air force as a loadmaster. It's safe to say he knows every plane in the AF inventory. I showed him one of the videos, (there are several) up to before the building came into view, he knew exactly what kind of refueling plane it was and said it had a remote control module on it that had been fitted to 40 of them at McGill AFB. I reached over and started the video again, as it went into the building he completely freaked out on me, yelled what are you trying to say, the military did that. I calmly told him I hadn't said a thing, let his own eyes tell him what he was seeing.

I always wondered what happened to the passengers, it actually was one of the big things that I couldn't get around.

You simply can't get people to look at the hundreds of contributing factual events, all the little things, they are too gummed up with a thousand conspiracy theories to where it all sounds too crazy.

I don't talk about it to people because it simply won't fly with most. The demolition of those two buildings was the most sophisticated demolition in history, buildings don't randomly fall onto themselves floor by floor, it would be a million or billion to one chance of that happening. Two is a trillion to one. I saw a meeting where some of the world's top demolition experts were brought in as consultants by the 9/11 commission, their reports is what states the odds of a building that tall simply falling on it's own footprint. They say it's impossible.

People, almost all people see the videos of those buildings coming down and the universal statement is that there is definitely something wrong with it. Your brain tells you that there is something unnatural about it, something weird about the fountain of molten metal spewing out just prior to the collapse. No fire of any kind does that to girders.

bahmer

Babsan wrote:

So what was flying into the towers?

Maybe they were all holograms.

Sicilianthing

Babsan wrote:

So what was flying into the towers?

>>>>

Remote Control planes ? Who knows ?

Sicilianthing

woodguru wrote:

Look at the high resolution videos taken by news cameras that the CIA held until they got them back years later, you decide what those were. Also why did so many eye witnesses describe the planes as black?

My brother in law was in the air force as a loadmaster. It's safe to say he knows every plane in the AF inventory. I showed him one of the videos, (there are several) up to before the building came into view, he knew exactly what kind of refueling plane it was and said it had a remote control module on it that had been fitted to 40 of them at McGill AFB. I reached over and started the video again, as it went into the building he completely freaked out on me, yelled what are you trying to say, the military did that. I calmly told him I hadn't said a thing, let his own eyes tell him what he was seeing.

I always wondered what happened to the passengers, it actually was one of the big things that I couldn't get around.

You simply can't get people to look at the hundreds of contributing factual events, all the little things, they are too gummed up with a thousand conspiracy theories to where it all sounds too crazy.

I don't talk about it to people because it simply won't fly with most. The demolition of those two buildings was the most sophisticated demolition in history, buildings don't randomly fall onto themselves floor by floor, it would be a million or billion to one chance of that happening. Two is a trillion to one. I saw a meeting where some of the world's top demolition experts were brought in as consultants by the 9/11 commission, their reports is what states the odds of a building that tall simply falling on it's own footprint. They say it's impossible.

People, almost all people see the videos of those buildings coming down and the universal statement is that there is definitely something wrong with it. Your brain tells you that there is something unnatural about it, something weird about the fountain of molten metal spewing out just prior to the collapse. No fire of any kind does that to girders.

Look at the high resolution videos taken by news c... (show quote)

>>>>

Bullseye - JACKPOT !

donald41 Loc: puyallup Wa

Sicilianthing wrote:

There were no commercial plane crashes on Septembe... (show quote)

You are right it was a false flag,, I have said so almost from the start.. But for some reasone no one will even consider it.

Sicilianthing

donald41 wrote:

You are right it was a false flag,, I have said so almost from the start.. But for some reasone no one will even consider it.

>>>>

Most won’t consider it because they are stupid sheeple programmed by the following co conspirators:

Mutton Dressed As Lamb

Babsan wrote:

So what was flying into the towers?

Alien Pit Bulls from Mars.

woodguru

donald41 wrote:

You are right it was a false flag,, I have said so almost from the start.. But for some reasone no one will even consider it.

It's an incredibly hard thing for even an open minded person to believe. I've found that among those who do buy the concept they can try to fit too many elements in to where already thin credibility is gone.

Sicilianthing

woodguru wrote:

It's an incredibly hard thing for even an open minded person to believe. I've found that among those who do buy the concept they can try to fit too many elements in to where already thin credibility is gone.

>>>>

What elements do you believe in Guru ?

Babsan

woodguru wrote:

Look at the high resolution videos taken by news cameras that the CIA held until they got them back years later, you decide what those were. Also why did so many eye witnesses describe the planes as black?

My brother in law was in the air force as a loadmaster. It's safe to say he knows every plane in the AF inventory. I showed him one of the videos, (there are several) up to before the building came into view, he knew exactly what kind of refueling plane it was and said it had a remote control module on it that had been fitted to 40 of them at McGill AFB. I reached over and started the video again, as it went into the building he completely freaked out on me, yelled what are you trying to say, the military did that. I calmly told him I hadn't said a thing, let his own eyes tell him what he was seeing.

I always wondered what happened to the passengers, it actually was one of the big things that I couldn't get around.

You simply can't get people to look at the hundreds of contributing factual events, all the little things, they are too gummed up with a thousand conspiracy theories to where it all sounds too crazy.

I don't talk about it to people because it simply won't fly with most. The demolition of those two buildings was the most sophisticated demolition in history, buildings don't randomly fall onto themselves floor by floor, it would be a million or billion to one chance of that happening. Two is a trillion to one. I saw a meeting where some of the world's top demolition experts were brought in as consultants by the 9/11 commission, their reports is what states the odds of a building that tall simply falling on it's own footprint. They say it's impossible.

People, almost all people see the videos of those buildings coming down and the universal statement is that there is definitely something wrong with it. Your brain tells you that there is something unnatural about it, something weird about the fountain of molten metal spewing out just prior to the collapse. No fire of any kind does that to girders.

Look at the high resolution videos taken by news c... (show quote)

So why was there pieces of airplanes in the pit and the extreme heat the jetfuel emitted started to weaken and melt the core

Sicilianthing

Babsan wrote:

So why was there pieces of airplanes in the pit and the extreme heat the jetfuel emitted started to weaken and melt the core

>>>>

Nope that’s not how it melts... no deal

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Sicilianthing wrote:

>>>>

Remote Control planes ? Who knows ?

From an avionics maintenance/avionics systems technician with extensive experience with both types of both aircraft types used on 9/11, and who has performed routine maintenance (767 overhaul for two and a half years) as well as non-routine maintenance, ie troubleshooting and repair.

9/11 Myths:Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis

Central to many "inside job" 9/11 conspiracy theories is the idea that hijackers weren't controlling the 4 ill-fated flights involved in the attacks. Instead there was some sort of remote system guiding the aircraft to their targets. How might this work? Lets look at the options:

1) Military tankers fitted as "drones" and disguised to look like AA and UA jets. The problem with this approach is the questions that remain unanswered. What happened to the 4 flights? The passengers and crew? The airplanes themselves? Neither the people nor the airplanes were ever heard from again, that much we do know. A further look at this theory really makes it seem implausible especially since the airlines involved, United and American, would have to be involved in the murders of their employees and customers. Think about this for a moment. What possible motive would these airlines have to do that? Especially since they've lost billions of dollars in the wake of the attacks. United,having lost close to 10 billion dollars itself (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/unit-m13.shtml), wallowed in Ch. 11 for 4 years. American has only recently returned to profitability after suffering staggering losses itself, barely escaping bankruptcy. These airlines had everything to lose and nothing to gain by partaking in a government sponsored terror operation. If you are thinking that only a few fat cats agreeing to this would be all that was necessary, think again. The pilots are dead - they were not involved. So, if the 4 flights landed safely somewhere else as part of the conspiracy, that’sa pretty neat trick considering the pilots would never agree to be murdered. How did they fly the planes to secret bases against the pilots will? Remote control? I'll go into that in lucid detail a bit later. But wait a minute, if they can control the airplane from the ground, why use military drones then? Why not use the actual flights themselves in the attack?

2) No planes at all. This theory is not worth going over in detail because of the myriad of dilemmas that need reconciliation. The biggest one being the fact that hundreds of people saw American Flight 11 crash into the North Tower with their own two eyes. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower with their own eyes. Enough said.

3) Remotely guiding Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 into their respective targets. This solves all of the problems presented above and then some. But how would it be accomplished, theoretically? Is there an easy way ? Short answer. No, there is not an easy way to do this for two reasons:

-A very well trained flight crew
.
-A very complex and very redundant web of systems that work together to control every aspect of flight.

Moreover, the pilots have complete control over these systems from the flight deck, and they are constantly monitoredby the airplanes defenses such as the Master Caution/Warning System, Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) as well as the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System(ACMS). I'm getting ahead of myself, though. I'll go into these systems later on, in depth, and show how they can not only detect a sabotage, but detect problems in real-time as they happen.

Moreover, the pilots have complete control over these systems from the flight deck, and they are constantly monitoredby the airplanes defenses such as the Master Caution/Warning System, Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) as well as the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS). I'm getting ahead of myself, though. I'll go into these systems later on, in depth, and show how they can not only detect a sabotage, but detect problems in real-time as they happen.

From here on, this analysis is technical with detailed descriptions of aircraft electronics systems in the 767/757 jets. Only those with electronics or avionics backgrounds will be able to understand.

Glossary of Terms/ Acronyms

757/767 Overview

Electrical System

Autoflight System (AFCS)

Flight Management System

EICAS

ACARS

Navigation System

Flight Controls

Hydraulic System

Remote Takeover Overview/Assumptions

Scenario 1: Autopilot - Used In Conjunction With ACARS And Other Systems Already In Place

Scenario 2: "Foreign" Takeover System

Scenario 3: Scenario 1 With Sabotage Designed To Disable Crew

Raytheon and JPALS

Conclusion
With modern technology, almost anything is possible; certainly "robo-jets" are possible. The purpose of this essay was to show that taking over an airliner via "remote control" is not as easy as The Lone Gunmen pilot episode made it look. There is no button a ground controller can push to magically take control of an airplane. But, even if there was, the pilots could thwart the takeover attempt by killing the power anyways.

If I was planning a conspiracy that would involve taking over airliners and crashing them into predetermined targets, I might choose a 777 or an Airbus A330/340. These are FBW aircraft, so you can't simply remove electrical power if you want control of the airplane. I might also use a DC-10 or a 747 Classic, no EICAS to worry about. To me, the 757/767 is simply the worst choice as a "robojet", unless you completely redesigned the plane.

I hope this essay has been helpful. The difficulty of turning an airliner into a cruise missile is probably common sense for most sensible folks; but I think it’s an important topic as it relates to 9/11, so I decided to tackle it from a technical standpoint. The information presented on the aircrafts systems is accurate, as it’s summarized from the "Description and Operation" sections of the 757/767 Maintenance Manuals. Thanks to Mike W for inviting me to write this for his wonderful site. Also, thanks to Bogglehead from theScrewLooseChange blog, who got me thinking about this topic in the first place. Feel free to contact me with any suggestions or questions at : apathoid@earthlink.net.

Sicilianthing

Blade_Runner wrote:

From an avionics maintenance/avionics systems technician with extensive experience with both types of both aircraft types used on 9/11, and who has performed routine maintenance (767 overhaul for two and a half years) as well as non-routine maintenance, ie troubleshooting and repair.

9/11 Myths:Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis

Central to many "inside job" 9/11 conspiracy theories is the idea that hijackers weren't controlling the 4 ill-fated flights involved in the attacks. Instead there was some sort of remote system guiding the aircraft to their targets. How might this work? Lets look at the options:

1) Military tankers fitted as "drones" and disguised to look like AA and UA jets. The problem with this approach is the questions that remain unanswered. What happened to the 4 flights? The passengers and crew? The airplanes themselves? Neither the people nor the airplanes were ever heard from again, that much we do know. A further look at this theory really makes it seem implausible especially since the airlines involved, United and American, would have to be involved in the murders of their employees and customers. Think about this for a moment. What possible motive would these airlines have to do that? Especially since they've lost billions of dollars in the wake of the attacks. United,having lost close to 10 billion dollars itself (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/unit-m13.shtml), wallowed in Ch. 11 for 4 years. American has only recently returned to profitability after suffering staggering losses itself, barely escaping bankruptcy. These airlines had everything to lose and nothing to gain by partaking in a government sponsored terror operation. If you are thinking that only a few fat cats agreeing to this would be all that was necessary, think again. The pilots are dead - they were not involved. So, if the 4 flights landed safely somewhere else as part of the conspiracy, that’sa pretty neat trick considering the pilots would never agree to be murdered. How did they fly the planes to secret bases against the pilots will? Remote control? I'll go into that in lucid detail a bit later. But wait a minute, if they can control the airplane from the ground, why use military drones then? Why not use the actual flights themselves in the attack?

2) No planes at all. This theory is not worth going over in detail because of the myriad of dilemmas that need reconciliation. The biggest one being the fact that hundreds of people saw American Flight 11 crash into the North Tower with their own two eyes. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower with their own eyes. Enough said.

3) Remotely guiding Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 into their respective targets. This solves all of the problems presented above and then some. But how would it be accomplished, theoretically? Is there an easy way ? Short answer. No, there is not an easy way to do this for two reasons:

-A very well trained flight crew
.
-A very complex and very redundant web of systems that work together to control every aspect of flight.

Moreover, the pilots have complete control over these systems from the flight deck, and they are constantly monitoredby the airplanes defenses such as the Master Caution/Warning System, Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) as well as the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System(ACMS). I'm getting ahead of myself, though. I'll go into these systems later on, in depth, and show how they can not only detect a sabotage, but detect problems in real-time as they happen.

Moreover, the pilots have complete control over these systems from the flight deck, and they are constantly monitoredby the airplanes defenses such as the Master Caution/Warning System, Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) as well as the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS). I'm getting ahead of myself, though. I'll go into these systems later on, in depth, and show how they can not only detect a sabotage, but detect problems in real-time as they happen.

From here on, this analysis is technical with detailed descriptions of aircraft electronics systems in the 767/757 jets. Only those with electronics or avionics backgrounds will be able to understand.

Glossary of Terms/ Acronyms

757/767 Overview

Electrical System

Autoflight System (AFCS)

Flight Management System

EICAS

ACARS

Navigation System

Flight Controls

Hydraulic System

Remote Takeover Overview/Assumptions

Scenario 1: Autopilot - Used In Conjunction With ACARS And Other Systems Already In Place

Scenario 2: "Foreign" Takeover System

Scenario 3: Scenario 1 With Sabotage Designed To Disable Crew

Raytheon and JPALS

Conclusion
With modern technology, almost anything is possible; certainly "robo-jets" are possible. The purpose of this essay was to show that taking over an airliner via "remote control" is not as easy as The Lone Gunmen pilot episode made it look. There is no button a ground controller can push to magically take control of an airplane. But, even if there was, the pilots could thwart the takeover attempt by killing the power anyways.

If I was planning a conspiracy that would involve taking over airliners and crashing them into predetermined targets, I might choose a 777 or an Airbus A330/340. These are FBW aircraft, so you can't simply remove electrical power if you want control of the airplane. I might also use a DC-10 or a 747 Classic, no EICAS to worry about. To me, the 757/767 is simply the worst choice as a "robojet", unless you completely redesigned the plane.

I hope this essay has been helpful. The difficulty of turning an airliner into a cruise missile is probably common sense for most sensible folks; but I think it’s an important topic as it relates to 9/11, so I decided to tackle it from a technical standpoint. The information presented on the aircrafts systems is accurate, as it’s summarized from the "Description and Operation" sections of the 757/767 Maintenance Manuals. Thanks to Mike W for inviting me to write this for his wonderful site. Also, thanks to Bogglehead from theScrewLooseChange blog, who got me thinking about this topic in the first place. Feel free to contact me with any suggestions or questions at : apathoid@earthlink.net.

From an avionics maintenance/avionics systems tech... (show quote)

>>>>

I need time to read this, will reply again tomorrow.