Fly By Wire



In Anesthetic Mist, we discussed the infiltration by the Israelis in the airports and how these Mossad agents winkled themselves onto the planes during downtimes to carry out modifications of the planes needed to execute the 9/11 mission. In Trojan Horse, we discussed how plane controls can be modified to fly on auto pilot using loadable software.

Plane controls


Image: This picture (taken from Wikipedia) shows how the control surfaces of the planes are connected by wire to the parts of the plane being controlled. Replace the mechanical (hydraulic) or electrical control systems with electronic control systems (using satellite datalinks to provide electronic input), and you have achieved remote control of the plane’s flight.


Image: On-board electronics of a NASA F-8 jet with “DIGITAL FLY-BY-WIRE” written on its side. The picture was taken at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. The date of the photo is 1971. We can infer that research on flying-by-wire was being done as early as 1971.

FL11 flight

VIDEO: From the cockpit of Flight 11.  Dailymotion

The video is of a simulated flight of American Airlines Flight 11 taken from the view of the cockpit. AA11 crashed into WTC 1 (North Tower) on 9/11. The towers are very hard to make out from such a distance. Navigating to the tower and striking such a slim target would have been a nigh-on-impossible mission for an inexperienced pilot who would have had to depend on instrument navigation to fly the plane.

View of the Twin Towers from the cockpit


Image from the video: View of the towers from the cockpit as AA Flight 11 approaches the WTC (it crashed into the North Tower or WTC 1). This is what the alleged hijackers would have seen from the cockpit as ‘they’ navigated the plane to the towers. The image is a snapshot taken from the video of the simulated flight.

Flight of FL77

VIDEO: Flight 77 Pentagon simulation.   Dailymotion

Simulation of the flight path of AA 77 flight on its way to the Pentagon. Why did the pilot make a 330° turn when the plane was already flying in the right direction (toward the Pentagon)? What was important about hitting this wing of the Pentagon? How could the pilot aim the plane precisely at its target using only instrument navigation? Even an experienced kamikaze jet-fighter pilot would have found this feat extremely difficult – if not impossible – to pull off.


IMAGE: View from the cockpit of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon.

Final approach to the Pentagon consistent with an autopiloted 757

“Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757’s autopilot”.

Final Approach Is Consistent With an Autopiloted 757

By all accounts the Pentagon attack plane approached the building’s west side from the southwest flying in a descending trajectory that took it primarily into the Pentagon’s first floor. Details of the approach path can be inferred from damaged objects such as the highway lamp poles and generator trailer.

The downed lamp poles indicate that the aircraft passed directly over the highway overpass and cloverleaf intersection southwest of the impact zone. Two of the clipped lamp poles were on the northeast side of the cloverleaf, about 600 feet from the impact zone center. Assuming that the ground at the base of the poles was elevated 18 feet relative to the Pentagon’s foundation, and that the poles were clipped at a height of 20 feet, the aircraft’s wings were 38 feet higher than the foundation at 600 feet before impact. Assuming that the plane’s wings were at an average elevation of 8 feet upon impact, the plane would have lost 30 feet of altitude in 600 feet of travel, averaging one foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled.

These calculations suggest that the plane was flying within a wingspan of the ground for at least its last thousand feet, but not “inches from the ground” as some have stated. Flying so close to the ground means the plane would have been experiencing ground effect — an increase in lift and decrease in drag produced by proximity to the ground. These effects result from the fact that the ground partially blocks the trailing vortices produced by the wing, decreasing the downwash and increasing the wing’s effective angle of attack.

The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon’s first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757’s autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy.

“Hani Hanjour’s” target from a birdseye view


Image: This was alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour’s target from high above. As you can see, it is virtually impossible for an inexperienced pilot to steer the plane to such a small target (small from a pilot’s point of view) with pinpoint accuracy. It would have even been impossible for many experienced pilots too.

Striking the side of the Pentagon at a horizontal plane with the belly of the airliner only several meters above the lawn is quite a feat even for an ace pilot. However, for a computer, this is relatively easy. There is little doubt the plane was under electronic control when flown and that a homing device had been placed in this newly renovated section of the Pentagon. That is why striking this wedge was crucial as this wedge of the Pentagon contained the homing device and why the plane made a 270-330 degree turn in order to do so. The “pilots” (pilots steering the plane by remote control) also wanted to avoid hitting their insider man inside the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was in the wedge that the plane was initially flying toward. Without any obviously good reason, the “hijackers” turned the plane around in a highly difficult maneuver involving skull-shattering G-forces (a 270 ° – 330 ° turn). A homing device was located in the wedge of the Pentagon that the plane eventually crashed into, a wedge that conveniently had been undergoing renovations, providing much opportunity for the sayanim or Mossad agents to place a homing device within it.

Spiral turn made by AA FL 77

A spiral turn and a sudden drop would have been extremely complex maneuvers for a beginner pilot to accomplish.

A spiral turn and a 7,000 foot drop in two-and-a-half minutes

Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.


Image: This image shows the turn AA FL 77 made before it struck the Pentagon. Instead of making a beeline for the Pentagon towards which it was on course to fly,  the plane changed course and did an elaborate and extremely difficult high-G forces maneuver aiming itself at a wedge of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovations. Note that the plane was initially aimed at the office of Donald Rumsfeld and offices of other top brass before it made the 330 degree turn.


Image: This graphic, taken from the NSA archives (National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Books or NSAEBB), shows the plane executing a 360° maneuver before striking the Pentagon. The plane makes a clockwise turn (as seen from above).


Image: In this graphic, provided by the NSA (from the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Books or NSAEBB), the plane’s flight is tracked.

American Airlines Flight 77

A. Departure from Washington Dulles Airport
B. Reaches assigned altitude of 35,000 feet
C. Deviation from assigned course (assumed takeover point)
D. Airplane heading east
E. Course changed to northeast; autopilot disconnected, then re-engaged
F. Autopilot disconnected

Supposedly the alleged pilot, Hani Hanjour, flew the plane into the Pentagon using only his navigation skills and his knowledge of the plane’s electronic controls. The sequence of events involving disengaging and engaging the autopilot has a lot to tell us. At point F, the autopilot was disengaged in order for external electronic controls to take over. At this point the plane was being flown by remote control. (Alternatively, a different flight plan had been loaded into the FMCS, a flight plan that had the Pentagon as its destination point.) In either case, the plane was not under human control. Notice the loop the plane makes at the end in the minutes before it hits the Pentagon.

The History and Evolution of Remote Control

History of 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 the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) 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 know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, withhuman intervention needed only to fuel and re-arm them.

To this day, drone aircraft are remotely flown from Air Force and Navy bases all over the country to provide targets for both airborne and ground based weapons platforms.

The data links, which could be used for remotely controlling digital airborne flight control systems in commercial aircraft, are already in wide use. Known as ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System), this system is widely used to report everything from position and fuel burn, weather and flight plan information to ground stations. ACARS also has the capability of sending data to the aircraft.

Using this bi-directional data link would allow both uploading digital control inputs to control the aircraft as well as the potential to download and remotely monitor the digital aircraft displays.

Progress in Technology

In the past 20 years, progress in the field of avionics (AVIation electrONICS) has given end users the ability to safely navigate and communicate to and from virtually any point on, or for that matter above, the earth.

The most significant development is the fielding and proliferation of a satellite based navigation infrastructure, or Global Positioning System (GPS) originally intended for use by the U.S. military. GPS utilizes a “constellation” of satellites — 24 of which are in active use with three launched as spares, to provide incredibly accurate position information to end users.

Paralleling the widening acceptance of both the burgeoning GPS industry as well as the exponential increases in computer processing capabilities were two major developments in airborne navigation and display.

Cathode ray tube (CRT) displays, collectively known as Electronic Flight Information Systems (EFIS), were first fielded for civilian use in 1985. EFIS displays are essentially airborne computer monitors with the ability to “composite” information from a number of sources into a single display, something that cannot be done with traditional electro-mechanical instruments.

In essence, EFIS allows the crew to distill available information down to what a pilot needs to know at a particular time.

The downside of these displays is their expense: An 8-by-10 inch CRT tube used in a Boeing 747 class aircraft costs approximately $234,076, according to the 2002 Rockwell Collins price list. A 747 has six of these displays installed.

A ‘Highly Evolved Autopilot’

As “glass cockpits,” as EFIS instrument panels called, gained acceptance, engineers designed flight management system (FMS) hardware and software that utilized faster and faster onboard computers to manage more and more onboard tasks.

FMS hardware is essentially a highly evolved autopilot. But where the autopilot was, in earlier times, a self-contained system, in today’s modern cockpits the autopilot is a sub-system that interpolates and executes commands generated by the FMS automatically, or by the pilot manually.

In everyday airline use, a flight plan is loaded into an FMS via either keystrokes on an alphanumeric pad, or via disc. This flight plan, pre-approved by, and filed with, the FAA will contain course, altitude and speed data that the aircraft will maintain at all points of its flight.

The format of the flight plan can be thought of as “point in space” data. In other words, the pilot flies the aircraft off of a runway and initially aims at a point in space that is a certain distance from, and at a certain altitude above the end of the runway he departed from. Upon reaching that point in space, which in most cases is an “intersection,” a point at which two major aircraft routes known as “airways” meet, the FMS will execute a turn, a climb, or combination of the two to the next point in space, and so on as the flight plan progresses.

Autopilots, once a system into and of themselves in airline aircraft, have evolved as well.

Originally designed and built in large numbers during World War II, the autopilot has come a long was since the first commercially available unit, the Sperry H-2, a comparatively crude pneumatic mechanical and vacuum tube device that would hold a course and keep the wings level, more or less.

These days, a digital autopilot, in conjunction with systems that control the throttles, can effectively fly the aircraft from point to point with little or no input (beyond systems monitoring) from the crew.

Because all the components of controlling the aircraft communicate with each other digitally through a central unit, the FMS, activating such a “safe return” system would be a matter of uploading commands to the FMS to fly the aircraft to the nearest airport. Controlling the aircraft’s speed, altitude and course, the FMS would guide it back to land.

For the article and its resources go to FACSNET.

The first airliner to be fitted with electronic controls was back in 1956

From this article in “Flight International” magazine, we learn that an airliner was fitted with electronic controls for the first time in 1956 and that the company, Dowty Boulton Paul, was awarded the contract to fit Boeing planes, V-22 Ospreys, with fly-by-wire systems in 1986.


IMAGE: Dowty Boulton Paul’s fly-by-wire actuator for the RAE’s vectored thrust aircraft advanced flight control (VAAC) programme URL:


Since 1956, when a Tay-engined Viscount became the first aircraft to fly with an FBW flight-control system, which was designed and manufactured by Dowty Boulton Paul, the company has evolved FBW equipment for a range of aircraft including the Vulcan, Buccaneer, VC10, Concorde, Tornado, BAe One-Eleven, A300-600, Agusta 129, AMX, FBW Jaguar, and BAe’s latest Experimental Aircraft Programme (EAP) fighter demonstrator.

Dowty Boulton Paul becomes the first British supplier to the Boeing-Bell V-22 Osprey. After a two-year “hard sell” of its advanced active control expertise, the British company has been awarded a contract worth potentially £10 million for the supply of two actuators per rudder, each full time fly-by-wire and operating at 5,000lb/in2.

Flight management system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A flight management system or FMS is a computerized avionics component found on most commercial and business aircraft. It is sometimes referred to as an FMC or Flight Management Computer and also as FMGS – Flight Management Guidance Envelope System (Airbus). Its primary function is to assist the pilots in navigating and managing the aircraft. The system uses data from sources such as conventional navaids, the aircraft’s inertial navigation systems and GPS to determine the position of the aircraft. Additional information such as standard departure, arrival and instrument approach procedures are also contained in the onboard database. The raw data, the routing programmed by the pilot, as well as other pertinent information from the database, are combined to create a moving map display, which is called the Navigation Display (ND) on Boeing aircraft. Compared to traditional ’round-dial’ equipment, such display can significantly improve the situational awareness of the pilots. The FMS also assist in calculating aircraft performance data such as takeoff and landing speeds and optimum cruise speed and level.

The FMS is connected to an autopilot, and is often coupled to additional multi-function displays. In some newer systems, the FMS can relay the aircraft’s position back to air traffic control or airlines’ dispatchers via a DATALINK or SATCOM [my emphasis].

While an autopilot can be set to just maintain aircraft heading and altitude, a flight management system can be programmed to do much more. By providing inputs to the autopilot and throttles, it can guide the aircraft through a complex set of speed, course and altitude changes from the airport of origin to the destination, greatly reducing pilot workload.

Some flight planning systems can produce a flight plan in a form which can be loaded automatically into the flight management system.

For the article and its resources go to WIKIPEDIA.


Image: A Boeing plane being flown by remote control in 1984. The left-sided image shows a remote control plane crash. The image on the right shows a remote control test run. Boeing planes were flown by remote control for seventeen years before September 11, 2001.

Remote piloting of Boeings

“Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled.”

– State Department Pentagon Theory Debunking Website

The evidence on the government’s own websites such as the NASA website of remotely-control flown Boeings contradicts the statement above. A Boeing aircraft, Boeing 720, was used in a NASA demonstration of a plane being flown by remote control. The ‘commercial’ in the State Department’s statement is superfluous. A Boeing plane, either used for commercial or military purposes, can be re-configured to be flown by remote control. And as we can see in the NASA website, images and videos show a modified Boeing 720 being flown by remote control. All you would need to modify the planes for remote control flying is access to the inside of the 9/11 Boeing planes. The Israelis would have had plenty of opportunity to access the airplanes if an Israeli (sayanim) company managed the security of all of the 9/11 airports. As it turns out, the security of all four 9/11-related airports was managed by one Israeli company, ICTS. The technology to modify a Boeing plane to make it capable of remote-control flight was in existence.

Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center

In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a “go-around,” there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.

This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist.

The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fire-proof materials, and burn-resistant windows. Crash forces were measured, and a full complement of instrumented crash test dummies was carried on the flight.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

It was not exactly the impact that was hoped for, but research from the CID program yielded new data on impact survivability which helped establish new FAA rules regarding fire prevention and retardant materials. Although proponents argued that AMK prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the CID, FAA requirements for the additive were put on the back burner.

For the article and some great film clips go to NASA.

NASA was replacing cables and connectors with wireless modifications


Fly-by-wire A321 cockpit (Wikipedia)

Ground and flight test instrumentation was adapted to be wireless. Data could be sent direct to sensors. Remote access to the instrumentation was made possible with “sensor-tags”. Reconfiguration of flight was made more adaptable with “plug-and-play” avionics.

Technology Alternatives to Cables and Connectors, Adaptive Modular Instrumentation:

1. Standalone Wireless data acquisition and active Sensor-tags provide strap-on instrumentation with remote access.

2. No-power RFID and Passive Sensor-Tags provide direct access to sensors with no battery or cables at a distance.

3. Robust and Adaptive radios adjust characteristics to optimize RF comm for interference/low signal-to-noise.

4. Onboard RF Interroperability and Frequency Authorizations are approved Internationally across aerospace.

5. Adaptive instrumentation hubs are made to avionics “plug-and-play” standards for quick reconfiguration.

6. Data transmission on power lines is certified for certain applications.

7. Fiber-optic systems are also “plug and play” for high density measurements at high data rates.

8. Light weight coatings and shielding is developed for EMI/EMC and RF Interference.

9. Ground & Flight test instrumentation with wireless connectivity to standalone data acquisition or direct to sensors.

NASA demonstration of a remote-control plane

VIDEO: Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft  Dailymotion

This NASA video shows a controlled-impact demonstration. In the demonstration, the plane is being flown by remote control.


Image: This plane with the crash-test dummies was flown by remote control. The demonstration took place at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center in 1984, 17 years before the 9/11 attacks.


IMAGE: Dryden Flight Research Center. Photographed 1984.


IMAGE: Dryden Flight Research Center. Date: Dec 1984


IMAGE: Dryden Flight Research Center. Date: Dec 1984


Image: Dryden Flight Research Center. Photographed 1984. Boeing 720 Controlled Impact Demonstration aircraft flying above cutters on lake bed. NASA photo.


These are images of a plane flown by remote control. Transpose this plane with the planes flown in the 9/11 attacks and you will have a possible picture of what happened on 9/11: planes being flown by remote control and being steered to crash. In the NASA demonstration, the plane crashes because it is flown low enough for its undercarriage to come into contact with the ground. After skidding for a while on its underbelly, the plane is shredded by cutters. In the 9/11 terrorist operation, three planes crash because they are steered into solid targets (the Twin Towers and the Pentagon). A fourth 9/11 plane, United Airlines Flight 93 is detonated and then subsequently crashes. Alternatively, the plane crashes and then is detonated. Remote control flight was possible as far back as 1984 and probably even longer before that. Boeing planes were used in the demonstrations shown here in the images and videos. The four 9/11 planes were all Boeings.

Flight Aircraft Capacity Passengers Hijackers Crew
Flight 11 Boeing 767-223ER 158 76 5 11
Flight 175 Boeing 767-222 166 46 5 9
Flight 77 Boeing 757-223 188 50 5 6
Flight 93 Boeing 757-223 182 26 4 7


Video of CID using a plane flown by remote-control in practice in 1984

VIDEO: CID Aircraft in practice flight above target impact site Dailymotion

A CID (controlled impact demonstration) aircraft in practice. The plane is being flown by remote control.



COMMENT: The plane is being flown by remote control. It flies very close to the ground, before crashing. AA Flight 77 also cruised close to the ground for some distance before crashing into a solid obstacle. Both The CID aircraft and AA Flight 77 were flown by remote control. What you see on this video could almost be the video of the last moments of  AA Flight 77 flying before it crashed into the Pentagon.

Boeing planes were equipped with FANS systems before 9/11

FANS is managing flight using satellite technology. Flight crew and air-traffic controllers would communicate through data links based on satellite-based networks and a global positioning system. The requirements for a FANS flight are listed as a data links and global positioning system. Before 1998, FANS 1 upgrades were available for several Boeing models, including 747 and 777. And according to the report (written circa 1997, four years before 9/11) below 757 and 767 Boeing planes would receive certification for equipping with FANS in the first quarter of 1998. Planes involved in 9/11 included Boeings 757 and 767.

Operator Benefits of Future Air Navigation System

… through a satellite data link, airplanes equipped with FANS can transmit automatic dependent surveillance reports with actual position and intent information at least every five minutes. The position is based on the highly accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) …

Airplanes must be equipped for several functions to support implementation of FANS (see “Status of FANS 1”, below, for airplanes equipped for these functions):

* Airline operational control (AOC) data link.

* Automatic dependent surveillance (ADS).

* Air traffic control (ATC) data link.

* Global Positioning System (GPS) integration.

* Required navigational performance (RNP).

* Required time of arrival (RTA) …

What is FANS?

The concept of FANS is based on using satellite technology to manage air traffic ….  Using FANS, flight crews and air traffic controllers would communicate through data links based on satellite-based networks and a global positioning system. Airplanes would also send data link position reports using satellite communication networks …

Status of FANS 1

Approximately 15 airlines have purchased 350 ship-sets of FANS 1 upgrades for the 747-400. The 777 includes FANS 1 as a basic feature, and as of press time, Boeing anticipated certification of its 757, 767, and MD-90 FANS 1 airplanes during first-quarter 1998. [My emphasis]…ly/fo02txt.html

NOTE: This report was written circa 1997.

Flight deck of Boeing 767-300


IMAGE: The flight deck of a Boeing 767 plane. This bewildering array of controls, monitors and levers would have confronted the alleged amateur pilots. Amateur pilots were supposed to have handled all these controls expertly, navigating the planes successfully on their collision course with far-off targets.

How would these amateur pilots have known how to disable the transponders? How did they prevent the pilots from punching in the hijacking code, something that would have taken the pilots only a few seconds to do?

With a flight plan loaded into the built-in system, the FMCS of the 757 and the FMCS of the 767 can fly the planes by themselves from immediately after take-off to final approach. FANS (Future Air Navigation System) integrates with the FMCS to provide improved electronic guidance of the plane’s flight. FANS was first fitted into airliner flight systems in 1998, three years before 9/11. This is the information from Boeing:

Flight Deck

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays.

* A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing.

* The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer […]

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical [my emphasis] and both aircraft have a common type-rating.

Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.

Perhaps that is why Boeings 757 and 767 were chosen for the hijacking operation on 9/11. By 2001, they had the FANS systems on board.

Loadable software

Altering the flight plan of a plane can be accomplished as easily as loading the software with the desired flight plan into the plane’s computer system.

Loadable software is standard on later-model Boeing planes including 767s and 757s. See below:

Many newer airplanes, such as the Boeing 737-600/-700/-800/-900, 747-400, 767, and 777, feature loadable systems whose functionality may be changed or updated using onboard loadable software …..

In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time [my emphasis] required to turn an airplane around for the next flight …….

The loadable software that would have been of interest to the electronic hijackers were the flight management and navigation software. 767s and 757s contain all these types of loadable software:

Flight management computer (FMC) 767

Flight management computer system (FMCS) 757

Satellite communication system (SATCOM) 757, 767

From above, we learn that the 757s and 767s are able to communicate with satellites. Their flight management computers had data links that enabled that communication.

Furthermore, additional functionality can easily be added by simply uploading the required software.

Operational program software (OPS)


A database is a collection of data arranged for easy access and retrieval by the operating system of an LRU [hardware line replaceable units]. Some of the databases used by software loadable LRUs are: Flight management computer (FMC) navigation database (NDB) ….. The NDB, which is quite familiar to operators, is a database of navigation and route information used by the FMC to carry out navigation tasks. NDB software is typically revised every 28 days and becomes available approximately one week before it becomes effective …..


Loadable software can be a useful tool for Boeing operators by providing them with the ability to quickly change or update functionality on their commercial airplanes …..

Boeing was caught selling planes that had gyrochips

Gyrochips are gyroscopic microchips and are useful in FANS flights. Because of the military use of gyrochips, airline companies are prohibited in the US from selling commercial planes with the gyrochip to foreign nations.

Gyrochip (gyroscopic microchip)


Image: QRS-11 Gyrochip.

Boeing Company
Arms Export Control Act Violation (QRS-11 Gyrochip)

Synopsis: Boeing paid a $15 million fine for a violation of the Arms Export Control Act involving unlicensed foreign sales of commercial airplanes containing the QRS-11 gyrochip (gyroscopic microchip), a component that has military applications. The State Department also imposed additional oversight and compliance requirements on Boeing because of three previous export violations (see Boeing instances “Arms Export Control Act Violation (Transfer of Rocket Data to China),” “Defense Services to Russia and Elsewhere (Arms Export Control Act Violation),” and “Wedgetail Project (Arms Export Control Act Violation)”). According to the State Department, between 2000 and 2003 Boeing sold to China and other countries 94 commercial jets with the gyrochip embedded in the flight boxes [my emphasis] without obtaining an export license and in “blatant disregard” of State Department directives.

Product Description: The BEI GyroChip™ Model QRS11 is a “MEMS” technology, solid-state “gyro on a chip.” This DC input/high-level DC output device is fully self contained, extremely small and lightweight. Since the inertial sensing element is comprised of just one micromachined piece of crystalline quartz (no moving parts), it has a virtually “unlimited” life. The Model QRS11 is a mature product in volume production. It is fully qualified for use on numerous advanced aircraft, missile, and space systems.


Image: A RF serial data-link transmitter


Image: A RF serial data-link receiver

Other aircraft in the vicinity of the airliners

There are many eyewitnesses who saw another aircraft in the vicinity of the airliners. Another plane (or planes) flying nearby the AA 77 may be useful for monitoring the aircraft being flown by remote control. The other plane seen within the vicinity of American Airlines 77 shortly before it crashed into the Pentagon could conceivably have been the plane that steered the AA 77 by remote control into the Pentagon. To summarize, the plane that was seen in the area of the Pentagon before and at the time of the AA 77 crash was possibly used for either monitoring purposes or for remote-control steering purposes. Amid the confusion of the NORAD war games and the stand down order, a plane could have easily been flown in the skies above the areas of the 9/11 attacks. The confusion could have been planned for.

A white plane flying over the site of the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 moments after impact was also observed by many people. The Israelis probably flew their own planes to at least monitor these attacks if not to also remotely steer the 9/11 planes into the crash sites themselves. The Israelis were probably “documenting the event” so to speak just like the Five ‘dancing’ Israelis were close at hand to document the collapse of the Twin Towers.)



Image: A C-130 Turboprop

Allen Cleveland
Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.

Scott P. Cook
As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.

Kenneth McClellan
A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington ‘at an unusual angle,’ said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane ‘to let us know where it’s going,’ McClellan said. The C-130 pilot ‘followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,’ he said.

John O’Keefe
Then the plane — it looked like a C-130 cargo plane — started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.

Phillip Thompson — observed from 1-395 HOV lanes, directly across from the Navy Annex
Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic. I tried to reassure people that the plane was not a threat. All around me people began to panic, fleeing for their lives.

Keith Wheelhouse
The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, he said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.

Ournet family — watched from the Naval Annex
The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.

Joel Sucherman
Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn’t clear if that plane was trying to manouver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.

Lincoln Leibner
He said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. He said it appeared to be a U.S. military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is – excuse me – and he then saw fireball go into the sky. […] It’s a very tense situation obviously, but initial reports from witnesses indicate that there was in fact a helicopter circling the building, contrary to what the AP reported, according to the witnesses I’ve spoken to anyway, and that this helicopter disappeared behind the building, and that there was then an explosion.

Lincoln Leibner
the aircraft struck a helicopter on the helipad, setting fire to a fire truck.

Paul Begala
He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded.


Image: An El Al plane – a Boeing 767-200ER URL:

A chip that can help control the flight of aircraft

Boeing Fitting Aircraft With Illegal Parts?
Chip that was illegally installed in 2000 could have been utilized to execute 9/11 attacks
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Wednesday, March 7, 2007

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.

We talked to airline industry representatives to ask them if such technology had been installed in commercial airliners and they denied all knowledge, despite the fact that Boeing were hit with a record fine of $15 million after the company broke the law by selling commercial planes equipped with the QRS-11 gyrochip, which is also used in the guidance system of the Maverick missile.

According to the Associated Press, from 2000 to 2003 Boeing shipped 94 airliners oversees, mainly to China, that contained the chip, a device used for “military applications,” stated the report.

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.”


Once again Boeing aircraft is involved. These chips could have been the devices that former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von Buelow, referred to in his interview. Below is a quote from researcher Joe Vialls’s website of the minister’s reservations upon discovering the remote control flying capabilities of the aircraft Germany had purchased from the US.

“There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots’ hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case…

“As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be “rescued” by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet…”

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

Link: The original link ( has been removed. Link obtained from Web Archive.

It appears commercial aircraft made in the US had remote control flying capabilities as far back as the early nineties despite Boeing’s denials. Germany stripped the American flight computers out of the fleet of aircraft they had purchased from the Americans. But, asks Joe Vialls, did the US strip theirs?

Data link


Image: Data link system

There are at least three types of basic data-link configurations that can be conceived of and used:

  • Simplex communications, most commonly meaning all communications in one direction only.
  • Half-duplex communications, meaning communications in both directions, but not both ways simultaneously.
  • Duplex communications, communications in both directions simultaneously.

In civil aviation, a data-link system (known as Controller Pilot Data Link Communications) is used to send information between aircraft and air traffic controlers when an aircraft is too far from the ATC to make voice radio communication and radar observations possible. Such systems are used for aircraft crossing the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. One such system, used by NavCanada and NATS over the North Atlantic uses a five-digit data link sequence number which is confirmed between air traffic control and the pilots of the aircraft before the aircraft proceeds to cross the ocean. This system uses the aircraft’s flight management computer to send location, speed and altitude information about the aircraft to the ATC. ATC can then send messages to the aircraft regarding any necessary change of course.

In military aviation, the meaning of data-link is somewhat different – it carries weapons targeting information, and it can also carry information to help warplanes land on aircraft carriers.

In unmanned aircraft, land vehicles, boats, and spacecraft, a two-way (full-duplex or half-duplex) data-link is used to send control signals, and to receive telemetry. [My emphasis]


An aeronautical engineer, Joe Vialls (alias), elaborates on the theory of remote-controlled planes at his site.


Homing pigeons

He writes of a project in the mid-70s, a cooperative effort between two multinationals (Raytheon and System Planning Corporation) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Projects Agency), to create a system that would help the authorities take over the controls of a hijacked aircraft.

Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

The goal of the system was for the authorities on the ground to have complete control of the airliner, including having the ability to listen in on cockpit conversations. This would have been useful for the people in the Mossad team coordinating the hijacking from the ground.

From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane.

He proposes that this system, which was in place by the time the hijackings occurred, had been compromised by the conspirators breaking the Home Run computer codes:

The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

He describes a possible way the hijackers could have obtained datalink access – by piggybacking onto the transponder channel:

Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most readers will have heard of a “transponder”, prominent in most news reports immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique “identity” for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run “piggy backs” a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives.

Below is a quote from researcher Joe Vialls re a German official’s reservations about discovering remote-control flying capabilities of aircraft Germany had purchased from the US.

“There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots’ hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case.

The original link ( has been removed. Link obtained from Web Archive:

More from Joe Vialls on the home-run system:

“As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be “rescued” by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet.

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.”

It appears commercial aircraft made in the US had remote-control flying capabilities as far back as the early nineties despite Boeing’s denials. Germany stripped the American flight computers out of the fleet of aircraft as soon as they discovered the “Trojan Horse” devices. But, asks Joe Vialls, did the US strip theirs?

Systems Planning Corporation

It is instructive at this point to look at System Planning Corporation (SPC), a company that makes a Home Run type system.


GPS route recorder on the back of a homing pigeon.

Interestingly, Dov Zakheim, the former Pentagon Comptroller under whom 2.3 trillion dollars went missing, was once the CEO of this company:

… in 2001 Dov was CEO of SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor majoring in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems, and the notorious Flight Termination System (FTS) technology that could hijack even a hijacked plane and land or crash it wherever.

Systems Planning Corporation

[…] Systems Planning Corporation, a company that designs and manufactures extremely sophisticated control/guidance technology that enables an external operator to fly, and land, aircraft by remote control. One of the company’s principal products is the Command Transmitter System (CTS), a fully redundant, self-contained, solid-state platform capable of providing totally programmable remote flight control capability, including high-precision electronic navigation…..

Such total independence in all flight regimes is achieved through a variety of ultra-sophisticated space-based technologies, including Mil-spec DGPS (Differential GPS, using extremely precise encrypted military “P” Code transmissions), and is accurate to within one foot of the runway centerlineduring landing. [My emphasis] ……

[“Coincidence”: Operation Vigilant Guardian, one of five NORAD “war game exercises” underway on the morning of 9/11 and orchestrated by Dick Cheney, involved the simulated hijacking of commercial airliners. At one point during the exercises, while the four “real” hijacked aircraft were airborne, as many as TWENTY-TWO independent radar blips representing “hijacked” aircraft were simultaneously displayed on FAA radar screens along the Eastern seaboard. This, obviously, created total pandemonium. Air traffic controllers who had been advised beforehand by NORAD of the “simulated hijackings”, began frantically calling NORAD to determine which of the twenty-two targets were “real” and which were “exercise.” All indications are that whatever it was that happened to the four real “hijacked” airliners occurred during this purposefully orchestrated melee while the order was given for the US Air Force to “stand down”.]

The CTS/FTS system (subsequently improved, tested and implemented by Raytheon) allows specialist ground controllers to listen-in on cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means and safely land the aircraft at any airport within range.

In other words, this technology was designed to empower “law enforcement agencies” to hijack hijackers…..

It appears that one reason war game exercises were conducted when they were was to hide the remote piloting of the 9/11 planes. In the mishmash of electronic signalling between the planes doing the exercises and ground controls below, the electronic signalling between the 9/11 planes and the ground control of the terrorists would have been disguised.

In the article above, the two multinational companies that worked with DARPA to create the Home Run system are identified as Raytheon and System Planning Corporation.

In partnership with Raytheon, System Planning Corporation also supplies CTS/FTS technology to commercial airplane manufacturers for installation in airliners (Boeing: confirmed; Airbus: undetermined, but highly probable given the consortium’s connection to BAE, a US military contractor.)

American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m. The Washington Post, September 12, says this: “Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious” ….

“But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of afighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controller’s screens, the sources said.” (“On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked’,” The Washington Post, September 12, 2001, pgs. 1 & 11) [My emphasis]

Home-run system and the recent renovation of the Pentagon


IMAGE: The newly renovated section, Section 1, was the section that was hit by the plane, AA FL77. There are five sections that make up the Pentagon. The point of impact is shown.

Ordnance and electronic homing system may have been put in during the renovation


“The construction of the ‘exit hole’ wall is fairly straightforward. The structural portion of the wall is obviously brick. Inside of the brick wall is what is referred to as a furring wall … in this case using an old system of lath and plaster (today steel studs and drywall are typically used). The upright and horizontal black iron members are wired together, and the mesh is then wired to that grid-like system of framing members. Plaster is then applied over the steel mesh. The furring wall serves two purposes: it provides a finished interior surface that can be painted, wallpapered, etc., and it provides a means of bringing concealed electrical and plumbing down the walls, since there is typically an air space between the exterior wall and the furring wall …. The actual sequence, from exterior to interior, would be: brick wall, airspace containing plumbing and electrical systems, metal cross members, steel mesh, and then plaster. ”

The preceding description is from Dave McGowan – General Contractor, who also has a great site with 9/11 information.

Center for an Informed America

From above, we can see how the walls of the Pentagon were constructed. The perpetrators had several places in the walls to place a homing device. The walls consisted of several layers including a hollow layer where plumbing and electrical wiring were laid. The perpetrators could also have concealed the device in a prop inside the renovated section. The renovated section had many unoccupied rooms where the homing device could have been hidden. All the perpetrators needed was access to this section of the Pentagon. With many civilian workers entering and leaving the Pentagon during the renovation, Mossad could easily have obtained access. It would be useful to investigate which companies were hired to do the renovation. Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense would have had final say in which company was hired. It would be especially interesting to see whether any of them had links to Israel or American Jewish Zionists.

High g-turns showed planes exceeded their software limits

Some people have calculated the turn AA77 made before it hit the Pentagon was of the order of 5-7 g-forces. To prevent the pilot accidentally (or deliberately) flying the plane at high g-forces endangering everyone on the plane, software limits on Boeing commercial planes are apparently  in place to stop the plane being flown above a g-force threshold. The threshold is set at 1.5 g according to the pilot below. A pilot in a normal situation may not exceed that threshold. However, if the plane’s controls have been tampered with in such a way that the plane can be flown by remote control, the plane’s software limits can be exceeded.

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila

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 …

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g’s in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL …

Another pilot testifies to the accuracy of the statements made by Jim Heikkila about software limits of the plane:

“I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified “Privileged” Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified “Privileged” Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance  …..”

A pilot,
Erin Sebastian Myers

Human tolerance of g-forces

Positive, or “upward” g, drives blood downward to the feet of a seated or standing person …… Resistance to positive g varies. A typical person can handle about 5 g (49m/s²) before G-LOC [loss of consciousness] ….

Resistance to “negative” or “downward” g, which drives blood to the head, is much lower. This limit is typically in the −2 to −3 g (−20 m/s² to −30 m/s²) range. The subject’s vision turns red, referred to as a red out. This is probably because capillaries in the eyes swell or burst under the increased blood pressure.

In aircraft, g-forces are often positive (force blood towards the feet and away from the head); this causes problems with the eyes and brain in particular.

It is inconceivable that these inexperienced pilots, Hani Hanjour and others alleged to have been the pilots on the 9/11 planes, could have interfered with the plane’s controls in a manner so as to have disabled the software limits, let alone have flown the planes making high-g maneuvers (AA FL 175 and AA FL 77) that would have caused the blood to rush to their feet and their eyeballs to pop out or be pushed in, perfectly piloting their planes in the meantime, using mainly instruments for navigation, to their targets dozens of miles away and succeeding in striking them with “bullseye”-accuracy.

If Hani Hanjour and his ‘gang’ did not pilot those planes on 9/11, then who did?

Final Approach Is Consistent With an Autopiloted 757

By all accounts the Pentagon attack plane approached the building’s west side from the southwest flying in a descending trajectory that took it primarily into the Pentagon’s first floor. Details of the approach path can be inferred from damaged objects such as the highway lamp poles and generator trailer.

The downed lamp poles indicate that the aircraft passed directly over the highway overpass and cloverleaf intersection southwest of the impact zone. Two of the clipped lamp poles were on the northeast side of the cloverleaf, about 600 feet from the impact zone center. Assuming that the ground at the base of the poles was elevated 18 feet relative to the Pentagon’s foundation, and that the poles were clipped at a height of 20 feet, the aircraft’s wings were 38 feet higher than the foundation at 600 feet before impact. Assuming that the plane’s wings were at an average elevation of 8 feet upon impact, the plane would have lost 30 feet of altitude in 600 feet of travel, averaging one foot of altitude for each 20 feet traveled.

These calculations suggest that the plane was flying within a wingspan of the ground for at least its last thousand feet, but not “inches from the ground” as some have stated. Flying so close to the ground means the plane would have been experiencing ground effect — an increase in lift and decrease in drag produced by proximity to the ground. These effects result from the fact that the ground partially blocks the trailing vortices produced by the wing, decreasing the downwash and increasing the wing’s effective angle of attack.

The influence of ground effect may have required the plane to adjust its attitude in order to maintain a course toward the Pentagon’s first floor. Since lift is proportional to angle of attack up to the critical angle of attack (at which the wing stalls), compensating for the increased lift due to ground effect is simply a matter of adjusting the pitch downward to cancel out the increased lift. Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757’s autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy. [My emphasis]

Operation Aphrodite and Operation Anvil


Aphrodite drone at takeoff Wikipedia

During World War II, Americans carried out an actual program of using remote-controlled planes as missiles. Planes were fitted out with automatic pilots. Since there was no way to safely launch the aircraft unmanned, the pilots had to fly the plane for part of the distance, and when they had reached a certain point in the journey, they ejected from the plane by parachute. Before leaving the plane, the pilots transferred the plane to radio controlled flight, and armed the bomb payload. A “mothership” controlled the flight of the planes.

Operation Aphrodite

Aphrodite and Anvil were the World War II code names of United States Army Air Forces and United States Navy operations to use B-17 and PB4Y bombers as precision-guided munitions against bunkers and other hardened/reinforced enemy facilities, such as those targeted during Operation Crossbow.

The plan called for B-17 aircraft that had been taken out of operational service: various nicknames existed such as “robot”, “baby”, “drone” or “weary Willy” – to be loaded to capacity with explosives, and flown by radio control into bomb-resistant fortifications such as German U-boat pens and V-weapon sites.

It was hoped that it would match the British success with Tallboy and Grand Slam ground penetration bombs but the project was dangerous, expensive and unsuccessful. Of 14 missions flown, none resulted in the successful destruction of a target. Many aircraft lost control and crashed or were shot down by flak, and many pilots were killed. However, a handful of aircraft scored near misses. One notable pilot death was that of Lt Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., USNR, the elder brother of future US President John F. Kennedy.

The program effectively ceased on January 27, 1945 when General Spaatz sent an urgent message to Doolittle: “Aphrodite babies must not be launched against the enemy until further orders”.


By late 1943, General Henry H. Arnold had directed Brigadier General Grandison Gardner’s electronic engineers at Eglin Field, Florida, to outfit war-weary bombers with automatic pilots so that they could be remotely controlled. The plan was first proposed to Major General James H. Doolittle some time in 1944. Doolittle approved the plan for Operation Aphrodite on June 26, and assigned the 3rd Bombardment Division with preparing and flying the drone aircraft, which was to be designated BQ-7. In the U.S. Navy’s similar project, Operation Anvil, the drone was designated BQ-8.

Final assignment of responsibility was given to the 562nd Bomb Squadron at RAF Honington in Suffolk. Similarly, on July 6, 1944 the US Navy Special Attack Unit (SAU-1) was formed under ComAirLant, with Commander James A. Smith, Officer in Charge, for transfer without delay to Commander Fleet Air Wing 7 in Europe to attack German V-1 and V-2 sites with PB4Y-1s converted to assault drones.


After completing 80 323rd BS missions, Aphrodite B-17F (The Careful Virgin) was used against Mimoyecques but impacted short of target by controller error.

Old Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers were stripped of all normal combat armament and all other non-essential gear (armor, guns, bomb racks, transceiver, seats, etc.), relieving about 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of weight. To allow easier exit when the pilot and co-pilot were to parachute out, the canopy was removed. Azon radio remote-control equipment was added, with two television cameras fitted in the cockpit to allow a view of both the ground and the main instrumentation panel to be transmitted back to an accompanying CQ-17 ‘mothership’.

The drone was loaded with explosives weighing more than twice that of a B-17’s normal bomb payload. The British Torpex used for the purpose was itself 50% more powerful than TNT.

A relatively remote location in Norfolk, RAF Fersfield, was the launch site. Initially, RAF Woodbridge had been selected for its long runway, but the possibility of a damaged aircraft that diverted to Woodbridge for landings colliding with a loaded drone caused concerns. The remote control system was insufficient for safe takeoff, so each drone was taken aloft by a volunteer pilot and a volunteer flight engineer to an altitude of 2,000 ft (600 m) for transfer of control to the CQ-17 operators. After successful turnover of control of the drone, the two-man crew would arm the payload and parachute out of the cockpit. The ‘mothership’ would then direct the missile to the target.

When the training program was complete, the 562nd Squadron had ten drones and four “motherships”.

Operation Aphrodite

783px-B-17-operation aphrodite-sml

After completing 80 323rd BS missions, Aphrodite B-17F (The Careful Virgin) was used against Mimoyecques [a German underground missile site] but impacted short of target by controller error. Wikipedia

Type Radio-controlled bombers as guided missiles
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service 1944
Used by United States Army Air Forces (Aphrodite)
United States Navy (Anvil)
Warhead Payload: 30,000 LB (13,600 kg) Torpex

Azon (TV sensor, radio control)

Castor (radar & TV sensors, radio control)



Anyone with access to the 9/11 planes before their flights (or even during the flights themselves) could have loaded their own databases onto the planes. Did the Israelis have that access?

Israeli control of 9/11 airports provided opportunity

The Israelis had many opportunities to change the software of the planes’ computers. Israeli companies were in control of the security of all four airports.

All 9/11 Airports Serviced by One Israeli Owned Company

It’s one of those times when an innocuous comment in an unrelated news report triggers a revelation.In the article at there is the following paragraph:

“To make the situation worse, a private security company called ICTS, owned by an Israeli, Ezra Harel, and registered in the Netherlands, was employed at Charles de Gaulle airport to screen passengers boarding US planes. Most of its personnel are ex-Shin Bet officers. The company covers security at Boston’s Logan airport, where the American Airlines plane came down after flight attendants and passengers overpowered Reid.

.. a visit to ICTS’ own web site at confirms that ICTS is in fact an Israeli owned company, and that it sells services to every airport from which the hijacked planes operated, including security, sometimes through wholly owned subsidiaries like Huntleigh USA Corporation.

It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state. This is even more true with the revelation that at least one gun had managed to be aboard a hijacked plane. One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11, and to the airports used by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. An Israeli company. One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with without the management knowing who they were or what their purpose really was.

We find the fox had direct access to the chicken coop. The company probably had some help from high up in the government to get the contract and for government officials to look the other way and ignore the obvious conclusion that a foreign company overseeing the security and running of American airports meant a security breach existed.


From Stephen M. St. John

… security at some if not all of these airport gates of 9/11 was in the hands of an American minimum-wage subsidiary of a Dutch corporation called ICTS-International. What is most remarkable about this arrangement is that the Dutch corporation ICTS-International was, as of 9/11, Dutch in name only. An early 2003 check of its web-site showed a Board of Directors consisting entirely of nationals of the Zionist state with the single exception of the Comptroller, who apparently was the nominal Dutchman. And if I need to clue in the clueless, the Zionists were hellbent on finding a reason for the USA to invade Iraq. And it would be fair to say that these Zionists of ICTS-International were the gatekeepers of 9/11 and all that followed, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Interesting, eh?

But the story gets even wilder. Not long after 9/11, the chairman of ICTS, Ezra Harel, whose surname is famous in the annals of the Mossad, died suddenly of a heart attack in his early 50s on his yacht off the coast of Palestine. Talk about not being available for comment!

But that’s not the kicker. Hours before the House version of the first Patriot Act went to a vote, “technical corrections” were inserted into the body of the legislation whereby foreign security companies such as ICTS-International would be immune from lawsuits related to the events of 9/11. Talk about not being available for deposition! This “Patriot” act legislative sleight of hand occurred before the inception of the 9/11 Commission when Fearless Leader George W. Bush was still resisting the very IDEA of an investigation into 9/11. Hence, in the face of an institutional cover-up, citizens were denied the possibility of a discovery process which is normally afforded to litigants. Without such discovery process, ICTS-International would never be compelled by a court of law to give testimony and show evidence related to the missing airport video surveillance tapes of 9/11 or any other aspect of security measures in place on 9/11.

The legal situation has since changed and ICTS-International is now a co-defendant in a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. (see

What a tangled web the Israelis have woven with the 9/11 false flag attack. Every where you look there is a Zionist-Jewish connection to 9/11. ICTS had connections to Israel’s Governmental Security Agency (is Mossad considered to be part of Israel’s Governmental Security Agency?). In effect a foreign government (and one which had murdered or attempted to murder American citizens in the past – the USS Liberty attack, the Lavon Affair attack to name two well-documented attacks by the Israelis) was in control of a number of major US airports including all of the 9/11 airports.

A poster called “totalitariantiptoe” from Opposing Digits digs into ICTS:

Well one thing we do know is, is that security and passenger screening for Boston’s Logan Airport on 9/11 was managed by Huntleigh Corp — an American subsidiary of the ICTS. The ICTS is a giant security corporation under the ownership of 2 Jewish Chairmen: Harel Ezra and Menachem J. Atzmon. The company’s workforce is interconnected with Israel’s Governmental Security Agency: the Shabak aka Shin Bet.

El Al flew all-Boeing fleets

Loading the necessary software could have been completed well before the hijackers actually boarded the planes by Mossad agents ostensibly working at the airports as hired-hands but who were in reality avionics engineers.

Alternatively, the hijackers, presuming they had been well-trained in avionics or in switching the software, could have been the ones who changed the flight programming. The Israelis would have had intimate knowledge of the workings of the Boeing airliners as their national fleet, El Air, consisted of Boeings including Boeing 767s and 757s in the early 2000s.

The Israeli national airline operates six all-Boeing fleets – 737s, 747-200s, 747-400s, 757s, 767s and 777s…


An El Al Boeing 767-200ER.


Israel had the means, motive and opportunity to electronically hijack the planes. There are two modes of hijacking that we have examined. The first mode is substitution of the flight management computer software with the hijackers’ own one (Operation Trojan Horse). The FCS allows for loadable software. Software that contained a flight plan that had as its destination the 9/11 targets could have been loaded into the flight management computer. It could have been done by the Mossad katsas (Mossad field operatives) or sayanim (Jewish locals who assist the katsas) that worked at the 9/11 airports. Another theory is that the substitution took place during the flights by the Mossad hijackers after they had boarded the planes and taken over the cockpits.

The second mode that is covered here (Fly-By-Wire) involves remote electronic control of flight. This mode may or may not have involved the placement of a homing device. A homing device provides an extra level of control and improves the accuracy of the plane’s flight towards its final destination. In the fly-by-wire mode, a plane is steered electronically from a control station on the ground. Inputs and outputs to and from the plane’s flight controls are made through bi-directional data links (uplink and downlink channels). The data link system is a system of communication between ground stations and remote platforms. Communications are received and transmitted via microchip. Data links and satellite communication systems are used to land warplanes on aircraft carriers. The technology certainly exists today to fly planes electronically by remote control, and has existed since at least the 1970s. There is a chip, a ‘gyrochip’, that can be placed within a plane’s flight management computer to guide a plane’s flight. This chip is used to guide missiles as well. GPS tracks the position of the plane. Controllers can even have a view from the cockpit via a videocamera placed in the cockpit. The videocamera streams pictures to the controllers continuously. The plane essentially becomes a drone. Since Israel’s theft of drone technology from the US thanks to the efforts of the their spies including Jonathan Pollard (Caspar Weinberger: “[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by… Pollard’s treasonous behavior”), and possibly many others who have evaded capture so far, the Israelis have been able to manufacture world-class drones (UAVs – unmanned aerial vehicles). Many countries have these Israeli drones on order. Israel indeed possessed the technology to fly the 9/11 planes electronically and pilotlessly, either by software substitution, insertion of a gyrochip and/or a homing device or by remote control guidance using GPS technology and duplex data link systems (SATCOM).

There is a third possibility: both systems mentioned above were employed by the conspirators to steer the planes towards their targets. In such a complex mission, the Israelis would have endeavored to have made sure all their bases had been covered. The operation might have required substitution of flight management data as well as electronic steering by remote control. Certain modifications would have had to have been made to the plane’s hardware as well. The Israelis had many opportunities to carry out dry runs with their own Boeing planes taken from the El Al fleet; if they had they would have used the same models as the 9/11 planes.

FROM: Hijackings on FL93, 11, 175, 77 and surveillance

Israeli Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

VIDEO: Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle.  Dailymotion

Israel developed its UAV industry after Mossad stole UAV technology from Americans and handed it over to Israel. One such company that manufactures aircraft is MALAT Industries.

IMAGE: Comprehensive UAV systems including datalink systems


IMAGE: Planes were equipped to communicate by satellite


IMAGE: Mobile ground control station housed in a truck receiving and transmitting data from plane


IMAGE: Advanced ground control station


IMAGE: The ground control operator has full control of UAVs and payloads that may include weapons.


IMAGE: Mission planning using GPS.


IMAGE: Ground control controls drone with SATLINKS



IMAGE: Planes are equipped with: MOSP (3rd generation electro-optical payload); SAR (synthetic aperture radar); MPR (maritime patrol radar)


IMAGE: Close-up of MOSP (3rd generation electro-optical payload)


IMAGE: MOSP (3rd generation electro-optical payload) is located under the belly of the plane.


IMAGE: Continuous flow of SAR (synthetic aperture radar) images received from the UAV.


IMAGE: MPR (maritime patrol radar)


IMAGE: Data received from MPR (maritime patrol radar) displayed on ground control monitor



VIDEO: Heron UAV   Dailymotion | Vidme

IMAGE: Communications systems are integrated: E/O (electro optical), SAR (synthetic aperture radar), COMINT (communications intelligence) and ELINT (electronic intelligence).

From: Alternative link: https://www .youtube. com/watch?v=7gyg2AdftJ8

IMAGE: Satellite communications used in UAV using wireless datalinks or SATLINK

From: Alternative link: https://www .youtube. com/watch?v=7gyg2AdftJ8

IMAGE: MOSP (3rd generation electro-optical payload)


IMAGE: MOSP (3rd generation electro-optical payload) as seen from below


IMAGE: MOSP (3rd generation electro-optical payload) was used to track these people on the ground.


Drone attack in Iraq (NSFW)

VIDEO (NSFW): UAV attacks rocket launcher in Sadr City, Iraq May 4, 2008. ArchiveOrgDailymotion | Liveleak | Vidme

Lockheed Cormorant Unmanned Aircraft

VIDEO: Lockheed Cormorant Unmanned Aircraft.  Dailymotion | Youtube

Computer animation of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works’ Cormorant submarine-launched and -recovered UAV designed for DARPA’s cancelled MPUAV programme. (Uploaded on Sep 15, 2007).

MORE FROM: Hijackings on FL93, 11, 175, 77 and surveillance

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)

VIDEO: Long Range Anti-Ship Missile.   Youtube

LockheedMartinVideos: “LRASM is a long range, precision-guided anti-ship missile leveraging off of the successful JASSM-ER heritage.”

The 9/11 planes functioned basically in the same way as the missiles in the video. They were guided by radio control and SATLINK to their targets. This video is from 2016 but the technology to fit Boeing passenger planes with similar fittings was available at the time of the 2001 attacks.

Below summarized from: FoxTrotAlpha 

Ring Laser Gyroscope

  • The ring laser gyroscope gives it a lot of advantages over bulkier gyroscopes
  • Used on tactical aircraft including UAVs
  • Technology has migrated to commercial marketplace and many modern planes are fitted with RLG technology
  • “Today, modern inertial navigational suites found on some aircraft, submarines, ships and spacecraft use Ring Laser Gyroscopes as part of an integrated Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), and in some cases, fly-by-wire flight control systems and targeting pods use them as well.”
  • “Gyroscopes can also be used to help stabilize an aircraft in flight and for autopilot purposes. According to Honeywell, one of the world’s leaders in Ring Laser Gyroscope systems, the technology dates back a century”
  • “Today, this technology has moved beyond just autopilots, as Ring Laser Gyros can also be used for stabilizing an aircraft in space when its data is tied to an aircraft’s fly-by-wire flight control system. For instance, the ‘carefree handling’ capabilities found on modern fighter aircraft allows aircrews to literally point the jet where they want it to go with minimal coordinated control or thought given to the aircraft’s gross weight and configuration. The F-35B’s hovering capability is possibly one of the most exotic examples of this.”



Flight simulator

VIDEO: F-35 flight simulator. This might have been similar to the view the operator of the Boeing planes had once they were put on remote control flights.   DailymotionYoutube

Ostrovsky: UAV research was stolen

Al is the name of an elite group within Mossad.

“By Way of Deception” by Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy

{p. 270} One of the more famous of Al’s activities involved the theft of research material from some major U.S. aircraft-manufacturing firms to help Israel secure a five-year, $25.8 million contract in January 1986 to supply the U.S. navy (shipboard) and marine corps with 21 16-foot-long drones, or unmanned Mazlat Pioneer 1 aircraft, plus the accompanying ground control, launch, and recovery equipment. The drones, which have a television monitor mounted underneath, are used in military reconnaissance work. Mazlat, a subsidiary of the state-run Israeli Aeronautical Industries and Tadiran, “won” the contract after outbidding U.S. firms in a 1985 tender.

In reality, Al stole the research. Israel had been working on a drone, but was not nearly far enough advanced to enter this competition. When you don’t have to include research recovery costs in your bid, it makes a substantial difference.

After winning the contract, Mazlat went into partnership with AAI Corp. of Baltimore, Maryland, to complete it.

Pollard spying for Israel

Jonathon Pollard’s theft of US military intelligence secrets included radio signals information and satellite information. This could have been used by the Israelis in the 2001 attacks in the planning for the attacks: for the execution of the attacks and for the elusion of the attacks from detection by US military intelligence.


IMAGE: Jonathan Pollard in a May 1991 file photo, six years after his 1985 arrest. REUTERS

At his sentencing hearing, Pollard, who’d been a U.S. Navy intelligence official, painted himself as a devout Jew who’d stolen classified documents dealing only with Arab military might in order to help Israel stave off an invasion; none of his actions, he claimed, harmed American security.

Judge Aubrey Robinson Jr. called Pollard to the bench, showed him a classified affidavit that the Department of Defense had submitted, listing the range of sensitive secrets that he’d stolen, pointed to one of the items, and said, “What about this?” Pollard was silenced. Robinson sentenced him to life.

We now know (and M.E. Bowman, a senior counterintelligence officer who was working the Pollard case, has since confirmed) that the item in question was a National Security Agency manual called the RASIN, short for “Radio Signal Notations.” The RASIN was a guide to the physical parameters of every radio signal that the NSA was intercepting—a guide on how the NSA was tracking military communications, not just Israel’s but any and every country’s, including the Soviet Union’s. The RASIN was 10 volumes, and Pollard gave his Israeli handlers every single page of it.

An article by Seymour Hersh, in the Jan. 18, 1999, issue of the New Yorker, titled “The Traitor,” listed some other beyond-top-secret documents—among the tens of thousands—that Pollard had stolen and sold. They included the “National SIGINT Requirements List” (SIGINT standing for Signals Intelligence), which revealed which communications channels of which military powers, in which regions, the NSA was intercepting in what order of priority. […]

Pollard also provided a year’s worth of memos by intelligence officers in the U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet, recording all their observations of Soviet planes, ships, and submarines in the Mediterranean Sea. He provided documents on how Navy intelligence was tracking Soviet submarines. He provided documents on how Navy intelligence was tracking Soviet submarines. He provided material revealing that one of America’s most highly classified photo-reconnaissance satellites could take pictures not just straight down but from an angle: Israeli or Russian or some other country’s officers might think they could take a missile out of hiding once the satellite passed over, but no, the satellite was still snapping pictures—and now, thanks to Pollard, they knew this, too.