We all saw the planes head straight for the twin towers and crash into them. So there must have been real live hijackers on those planes up until the end – right?
Wrong. What we witnessed was a clever misdirection – a craftily-managed stage-trick.
The Israelis accomplished this sleight of hand by use of:
1) Parachutes – to enable the Israeli Mossad agents to escape from the planes before they crashed; and
2) The autopilot – to allow the planes to be flown pilot-lessly.
Autopilot has been technology that has been in use on airliner jets for quite a few decades now. Remember the spoof comedy in the 70s, “Flying High”? Autopilots were a feature of airliners even back then.
… such pilotless airliners have been talked about for years, and the result has always been that passengers are not yet comfortable with the idea of letting a computer fly the plane unaided. But here is the real kicker: they already do! It’s just that there are also pilots who “monitor” the computer during flight. If you are in an airliner, it is more likely than not that the FMCS is actually flying the plane. In fact airliners are far safer because of it. Computers don’t get distracted or tired, they don’t turn up drunk, and they don’t get suicidal because of personal problems.
The autopilot can engage in lateral and vertical navigation after the aircraft has attained a radio altitude of 100 to 400 feet.
Joe Vialls outlines the development of the autopilot on his website:
In order to control an aircraft in three-dimensional space, the pilot uses the control yoke (joystick) in front of him, rudder pedals under his feet, and a bank of engine throttles located at his side. Without engine thrust the aircraft would not fly at all, so the throttles are largely self explanatory: For more speed or altitude increase throttle, for less speed or altitude decrease throttle.
In order to raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, the pilot pulls or pushes on the control yoke, which in turn raises or lowers the elevators on the horizontal tailplane. To bank the aircraft left or right, the pilot moves the control yoke to the left or right, which in turn operates the ailerons on the outer wings. Lastly, to turn left or right at low speed or “balance” turns at high speed, the pilot presses the left or right rudder pedals as required, which in turn move the rudder on the vertical stabilizer.
Back in the early days of flight, the control yoke and rudder pedals were connected to the various flight control surfaces by thin cables, meaning the pilot had direct physical control over every movement the aircraft made. This was no great problem for an average man flying a small biplane, but as aircraft grew ever bigger, heavier and faster over the years, the loadings on the control yoke and rudder pedals became huge, certainly well beyond the ability of a single pilot to handle unaided.
By the late fifties we were well into the age of hydraulics, where just like the power steering on your automobile, hydraulic rams were placed in line between the pilot’s control cables and each individual control surface. Now when the pilot moved the control yoke, the cables activated sensors, which in turn activated one or more hydraulic rams, which in turn moved one or more control surfaces. For the first time since Bleriot and the Wright brothers, pilots were of necessity being steadily distanced from direct control of their own aircraft.
When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different functions were now known as the “Flight Control System” or FCS, in turn integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews.
As the author states, all modern airliners are equipped to fly on autopilot. Boeing 777s, 767s and 757s have advanced computer systems called Flight Control System (FCS) or Flight Management Control System (FMCS) and Future Air Navigation System (FANS) that control pilotless flight. These computer systems are built-in. Few other planes have built-in computer systems. This is probably the reason these planes, 767s and 757s, were chosen for the hijacking.
“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.
While and 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. [My emphasis]”
From Wikipedia: http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system
Image: Flight Management Computer
With a flight plan loaded into the built-in system, the FMCS (flight management computer system) 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 fly the plane with pinpoint accuracy. FANS was first fitted into airliner flight systems in 1998 (three years before 9/11). This is the information from Boeing:
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.
* The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation.
* The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff. It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary. EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information.
The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it.
Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical 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.
Image: FMS hardware
Hence alteration of the flight plan of a plane can be accomplished easily by loading the software containing the new flight plan onto the plane’s computer system.
Loadable software is standard on later-model Boeing planes including 767s and 757s.
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 required to turn an airplane around for the next flight …….
The loadable software that would have been of interest to the Israelis 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
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. If operators take the necessary steps to prepare for the maintenance of loadable software systems, they can keep fewer hardware LRUs [hardware line replaceable units] in stock, increase hardware commonality, and reduce airplane modification time. The maintenance activity to use loadable software includes procuring the necessary loadable software parts and loadable LRUs, managing software libraries, preloading loadable software parts into loadable LRUs off the airplane, and verifying that loadable software part configurations conform to airplane certification documentation.
Israeli control of 9/11 airports provided opportunity
The Israelis had many opportunities to change the software of the planes’ computers because an Israeli company was in control of the security of all four 9/11 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 http://afrocubaweb.com/news/israelispying.htm 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 http://www.icts-int.com/ 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.
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 http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com).
What a tangled web the Israelis have woven with the 9/11 false flag attack:
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. . Additionally, the Israeli software company Odigo Systems — several of its offices were stationed near the WTC by the way — had received attack warnings via instant messaging at roughly 2 hours prior to any of the 9/11 planes even taking flight. Isn’t it highly suspicious that despite having the luxury of 2 hours, Odigo personnel did not contact the ICTS in order to cancel all flights? This is yet another smoking gun which hasn’t gotten much exposure as of yet.
Now Odigo Systems is under the control of another Israeli owned company, Comverse. It just so happens that Comverse was founded by the Jewish CEO, Jacob Alexander, who by the way, is currently a fugitive and wanted by the FBI for “conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud, for his alleged role in a multimillion dollar stock options scheme.”. Several other Comverse Executives are also facing fraud charges for manipulating stock options.
Keeping that in mind, let’s look back to a related area concerning the pre-9/11 stock options estimated to have taken place between August 26, 2001 and the September 11 attacks; insider tradingairline companiesRaytheon gained significant stock resurgences immediately following the attacks. It also just so happens to be that Raytheon collaboratesElta Systems Ltd. to equip commercial aircraft with defense systems. Funny how all these things that have been mentioned just “seem” to be directly or indirectly correlated to each other in more ways than one. Seriously, it’s like it is almost impossible trying to expose the 9/11 conspiracy without tying Israel to it. The fact that Israel seems to be so ubiquitous in almost all (if not all) the facets of 9/11 is proof positive of a highly consistent pattern which demands a real investigation. with Israel’s that involved several Israeli Citizens selling a list of 38 stocks pertaining to the associated with the 9/11 events. Major U.S. Military contractor corporations such as …..
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, well-trained in avionics before the mission, could have been the ones who changed the flight programming, a task they performed once they were at the planes’ controls. The Israelis would have had intimate knowledge of the workings of the Boeing airliners; their national fleet, El Air, consists of Boeings, including Boeing 767s and 757s.
The Israeli national airline operates six all-Boeing fleets – 737s, 747-200s, 747-400s, 757s, 767s and 777s…
Amateur pilots and high-G turns
The other curious aspect of the 9/11 planes is the way they were flown. Two planes were observed to carry out high-G maneuvers:
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.
Image: Flight path of FL77. The endpoint is the Pentagon, near Arlington Cemetery.
Let’s see what an experienced airliner pilot has to say about the likelihood of someone inexperienced in flying airliners steering the 9/11 planes accurately into their targets:
This paper was written by a professional pilot who flew heavies for 25 years.
Posted January 31, 2006
THE JET-JOCKS (Who Couldn’t Solo A Cessna)
There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.
What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively “easy” to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.
In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.
The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.
But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.
And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!
The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.
Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box cutter— Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let’s say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet — 7 miles — below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. Indeed, it’s altogether possible he could have found himself in cloud, and could see nothing at all outside the cockpit except for an enveloping, luminescent, dense, white ‘fog’. With this kind of “situational non-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.
Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!
After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.
It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.
But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour — whose flight instructors claimed was so clueless he “didn’t know how an automobile engine worked” — somehow managed to figure out their exact position in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.
Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes — remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).
In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into the flight management computer (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.
Since we’ve come this far, let’s push beyond the ridiculous and presume Hanjour overcame this hurdle as well. He would then need to disengage the autopilot and auto-throttle, and hand-fly the aircraft to its intended — and invisible — target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (NB: This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let’s not mull over that little point.)
According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: he also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).
And then, all of a sudden we have magic—Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by the top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed).
I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 10 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortices, downwash sheets, wake turbulence, and jet blast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner at 400+MPH, 10 feet above the ground.
The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 10 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of a mile. The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan — until speed is drastically reduced, which is what happens during normal landings. In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. [NB: Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as fighters, the B1-B bomber—and the Global Hawk.]
Ditto, the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers. They, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
This article not only shows the impossibility of amateur pilots like Hani Hanjour flying the 9/11 planes, it also points out that well-trained and experienced pilots would not have been able to execute some of the flying maneuvers of the 9/11 planes. The plane that flew 10 feet above the Pentagon lawn at a speed of 400mph in a horizontal trajectory for a mile after executing a high-G 270 degree turn was not piloted by a human. It was flown by a computer.
Note the plane was heading towards the wing where Rumsfeld’s office was located and inexplicably, it does a difficult 270 degree turn. Israel did not want to kill one of their higher-placed sayan. Rumsfeld was an important player in the Zionists’ scheme, not only in the planning stages of 9/11 – the Secretary of Defense gave the critically important “stand down” order to the NORAD planes – but also in the initiation and execution of the wars that occurred in the aftermath of 9/11.
Here is another viewpoint that explains the ridiculousness of Arab amateur pilots flying the 9/11 aircraft:
While in the Air Force I worked on heat-seeking, video, electro-optical, and laser-guided air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles and bombs. As a profession today I work in computer network engineering. As a hobby I am an avid fisherman very familiar with the concepts of GPS. From my perspective it would be a piece of cake to build a back door access into an aircraft’s avionics and seize control of the vessel.
We do it all the time with computers. It uses the Telnet protocol and programs such as LanDesk, which are widely available. With it we take control of a remote computer (remote control) and fix it while the end-user sits there and watches their mouse cursor move all over the screen, windows opening and closing, and their computer will not respond to any input they give it. And now we can do it in a wireless setting using hubs and switches that work with IR light to transmit digital signals. This is really ancient technology in the computer industry. The need to control computers half way around the world started as soon as Al Gore invented the internet. GPS technology is nothing more than electro-optical technology taken to a much higher degree. E/O and laser guided weapons rely on an energy source to “paint” the target. The weapon uses the reflection as a homing beacon which guides it directly, and with the nth degree of precision, to the target. Using GPS fish locating equipment I can return to a spot in the middle of a 10,000 acre lake exactly. Not close, exactly. To guide a plane to a target the size of the WTC would be no sweat.
All that said, as unbelievable as people would like that scenario to seem, it violates me much less than the one that is being peddled. Imagine a 25-30 year old man that has never driven anything bigger than a family sedan, and never driven over 55 MPH. Then take this man and put him in an 18 wheeler in a city he does not know. Tell him he must drive that truck across town at 80 MPH to an address he does not have a map to find. Just tell him it is southwest from where you are. Make him do this at the rush hour. Then if he does arrive at the correct address, he must back that truck up to the loading dock and do it perfectly the first time. And he must do all this without incident of any sort. Then realize the pilots were flying an aircraft 2000 times larger than anything they had ever flown before. And they were not flying 50% faster than they had ever flown, but 400% faster. Then factor in that these young men knew they would be going to meet Allah. Imagine how their hearts would be racing and their hands shaking. And we get three direct, dead-center hits. That is what stretches my imagination, not the remote control part.
Image: Bewildering array of flight screens and computer screens
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?
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.”
According to the article, the air traffic controllers “had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president’s mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed–full throttle.
“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 a fighter 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)
Remote control flight of 9/11 planes?
The Israelis would have wanted maximum control of the planes’ flight. If there had been another layer of control available to them, they would have opted for it. And as it turns out, FANS-equipped planes such as Boeing 767s and 757s provide for datalinks. Datalinks allow ongoing operational input from an external control center while the plane is in flight. Communication with the autopilot program can be established through a data port. Thus the plane’s flight can be altered mid-air from the ground even after it has been put on autopilot. In other words, remote-control flight is possible with these planes.
…. a FANS equipped aircraft can be remotely piloted via the data links. The onboard FMCS actually flies the plane, but the flight plan it flies can be changed via an external signal. Thus the aircraft is actually being piloted from the ground because it will fly where the person on the ground tells it to fly. You will notice that Boeing actually says that the FMCS can fly the aircraft from “immediately after take-off to final approach and landing”. To me this means that, unaltered, the FMCS can land the aircraft on a given runway. Takeoff is actually easier than landing, so one would assume that the FMCS could also takeoff, but that for some reason it has been disabled from doing so [in normal circumstances].
Operator Benefits of Future Air Navigation System
The current air traffic management system is experiencing growing difficulty as air traffic around the world continues to increase. With air traffic predicted to grow at the rate of five percent annually, the industry must find a new air traffic management system that provides greater capacity. One potential solution is a concept called Future Air Navigation System, or FANS. FANS offers a space-based method for handling increased air traffic, allowing operators to obtain maximum revenue from their operations while ensuring safe conditions for their passengers.
The air transport industry has developed a new concept for air traffic management that involves significant changes to airplanes, infrastructure, and ground systems. Known as Future Air Navigation System, this system is becoming increasingly attractive as an option for coping more efficiently with current traffic levels, as well as with the increased traffic levels anticipated in the future.
The current air traffic management system is based on ground navigational aids, radar, and voice communications, and will eventually be unable to cope with predicted air traffic growth. In response, Boeing has been working with the industry since 1983 to create FANS, which relies on space-based navigation and communication. (“What is FANS?”, below, describes the elements of FANS and the changes required for its implementation.)
Operator benefits offered by FANS include reduced fuel burn and flight time through direct routing, and increased payload capability for takeoff-weight-limited flights. If FANS were implemented, operators would be able to take advantage of several needed improvements:
1. Reduced separation between airplanes.
2. More efficient route changes.
3. Satellite communication.
4. No altitude loss when crossing tracks.
5. More direct routings.
1 Reduced Separation Between Airplanes
In non-FANS procedural airplane separation, errors in navigation and potential errors in voice communication between the flight crew and air traffic controller are considered when determining the necessary airspace separation between airplanes. The uncertainties of traditional voice position reporting and the delay associated with high-frequency relayed voice communications (20 to 45 min to make a high-frequency voice position report) require the air traffic controller to allow a tremendous amount of airspace between each airplane, typically 100 nmi laterally and 120 nmi longitudinally. This computes to 48,000 mi2 of airspace to protect one airplane, and means that airplanes often operate at less-than-optimal altitudes and speeds.
However, 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).
Digital data communication between the flight crew and the air traffic controller drastically reduces the possibility of error, and allows greatly reduced airplane separations. The combination of improvements in communication, navigation, and surveillance allows authorities to reduce required separation distances between airplanes, which in turn allows airplanes to fly at their optimum altitude and burn less fuel.
2 More Efficient Route Changes
Oceanic operations currently are based on weather data that are 12 to 18 hr old. By using the satellite data link that is part of FANS, however, the latest weather data can be transmitted to an airplane while it is en route. Flight crews can then use these data to develop optimized flight plans, or those plans can be generated on the ground and transmitted to the airplane. Such dynamic re-routing may allow airlines to consider reducing discretionary fuel, which further reduces fuel burn or allows an increase in payload.
3 Satellite Communication
Satellite communication can reduce to a few minutes the response time for an airplane requesting a step climb to a new, optimum altitude to reduce fuel burn. Response time is currently 20 to 60 min.
4 No Altitude Loss When Crossing Tracks
To avoid potential conflict, an airplane that is approaching crossing tracks must be separated by altitude from any traffic on another track. As a result, one of the two airplanes can be forced to operate as much as 4,000 ft below optimum altitude.
But if the air traffic controller has timely surveillance data, including projected intent, and the airplane is able to control its speed so that it reaches the crossing point at a given time, altitude separation would be required less frequently.
5 More Direct Routings
In many cases, current air traffic routings are compromised to take advantage of existing navigation aids and radar coverage, resulting in less-than-optimum routings. Taking advantage of space-based navigation and communication would allow more direct (shorter) routes.
With FANS in place, operators could benefit from reduced fuel burn and flight time as well as increased payload capacity for takeoff weight-limited flights. As a result, costs associated with crew and engine maintenance could be reduced, allowing operators to apply the money saved toward implementing and operating new routes.
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).
The elements of the current air traffic management system operating in most of the world are described at the bottom of this page. “What is FANS?” describes a potential air traffic management system based on the concept of FANS. Figure 1 shows existing and potential sites of FANS installation.
AIRLINE OPERATIONAL CONTROL DATA LINK.
The AOC link gives airline data systems the ability to transmit new routes, position reports, and updated winds through the data link network.
AUTOMATIC DEPENDENT SURVEILLANCE.
The ADS function reports the current flight position via satellite or VHF data link to the air traffic controller or to the airline. This improves the surveillance of en route airplanes.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) DATA LINK.
This function replaces the tactical communication between the flight crew and air traffic controller, allowing the flight crew to request deviations to, or replacements of, the filed flight plan. The air traffic controller also has the ability to directly request tactical changes to the airplane flight plan.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.
This improvement provides a more accurate position for en route operations and some approach operations. The navigation system must demonstrate that it can meet the required navigational performance criteria.
REQUIRED NAVIGATIONAL PERFORMANCE.
RNP criteria address accuracy, integrity and availability as set forth in FANS. The actual navigation performance is constantly monitored; if it exceeds the required navigational performance, the flight crew is alerted so that they can compensate for a situation in which they have less accurate information than the route requires.
REQUIRED TIME OF ARRIVAL.
This gives the flight crew the ability to assign a time constraint to a way point, allowing the airplane to cross a latitude or longitude at a specified time. The cruise speed is automatically adjusted to achieve that time, plus or minus 30 seconds. If the RTA is not possible, the flight crew is notified with a visual alert.
FANS represents a potential solution to the growing need for an air navigation system with greater capability. If all elements of the system were implemented, operators could expect such benefits as reduced fuel burn and flight time as well as increased payload and cargo. Possible flight operations improvements resulting from FANS include reduced space between airplanes, more efficient route changes based on updated wind models, satellite communication, no altitude loss when crossing tracks, and more direct routings.
Current Air Traffic Control System
The current air traffic system contains communication, navigation, and surveillance elements. Communication is through voice contact with an air traffic controller using high-frequency or very-high-frequency radio. Typically, high-frequency contact is handled through a third party who transcribes the messages on teletype and sends it to the controller. Over the continental United States and Europe, navigation is handled through ground-based navigational beacons. In oceanic airspace and airspace over less-developed countries, inertial-based navigators are used. In airspace over developed countries, surveillance is conducted using ground-based radar; in oceanic airspace or in airspace over less-developed countries, surveillance uses high frequency voice reports.
What is FANS?
The concept of FANS is based on using satellite technology to manage air traffic. The space-based FANS would be less expensive and less dependent on ground infrastructure than the current air traffic management system. 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.
Several changes would be necessary to implement FANS, including changes in the operational concept used by states, airspace operational procedures used to coordinate how traffic controllers and flight crews communicate, and ground and airplane equipment.
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. FANS 1 will be an option on the 717. Certification dates are being determined for FANS programs for the MD-11 and MD-10F (a two-crew modification to the DC-10 freighter under development for Federal Express; see article on page 22).
NOTE: This report was written circa 1997.
Boeing planes that were anticipated to receive FANS 1 certification in 1998 (and probably did) included the 757 and767 models.
Boeing 757s feature as the test aircraft in NASA’s aeronautical research lab.
ARIES: NASA’s ‘Flying Lab’ Takes Wing
757 in front of Langley hangar
NASA’s Boeing 757-200 aircraft is equipped to conduct a range of research flight tests. Research Focuses On Safer Skies, Improved Efficiency
A Boeing 757-200 aircraft obtained by NASA in 1994 is now serving as a “flying laboratory” for aeronautical research. The aircraft is being modified extensively for a broad range of flight research programs in the next 20 years to benefit the U.S. aviation industry and commercial airline customers. Called ARIES, or Airborne Research Integrated Experiments System, the aircraft is being used to conduct research to increase aircraft safety, operating efficiency and compatibility with future air traffic control systems. It is a vital research tool in support of the agency’s Aviation Safety and Aviation Systems capacity programs.
The 757 is continuing work begun by the NASA 737-100 in state-of-the-art technologies such as electronic cockpit displays, flight management systems and flight safety devices. The 737, the first off Boeing’s production line in 1967, was decommissioned in 1997.
Current and projected research needs greatly exceeded the capabilities of the 737. The 757 is a more modern airplane that utilizes electronic systems to a much greater extent in this growing electronic age. The 757 will better support research and development of the aeronautical sub-systems for the airlines and the airframe and systems manufacturers. Already the airplane has been used for several research programs, including:
* Flight tests using Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite data to perform automated landings of the airplane.
* The study of jet-engine contrails to determine their effects on the atmosphere.
* Testing of a system to improve the safety and efficiency of aircraft during landing, taxiing and takeoff by giving pilots a computerized map showing airport ground operations.
Future research will focus on technologies to improve air safety and efficiency, including:
* Evaluation of a system that would provide pilots with better strategic and tactical weather information while in flight.
* Testing of an airborne system that allows closely-spaced approaches to landings during reduced visibility to increase airport capacity.
* Runway friction research.
The NASA 757 was located after an extensive survey of the jet airliner market. It was the second 757 built and the first one produced that was sold to an airline. The first 757 is owned by Boeing. The airplane now at Langley had been used by Boeing for Federal Aviation Administration certification of the 757 class of jet airliners.
The second-generation, digitally-equipped transport, designated N501EA, was obtained from the Eastern Airline bankruptcy estate. Langley took possession of the $24-million aircraft March 23, 1994, at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nev.
The 757, maintained and flown by NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., is an integral part of the Transport Research Facilities (TRF). The TRF is a set of tools used in a simulation-to-flight concept. This concept incorporates common software, hardware, and processes for both ground-based flight simulators and the 757, providing government and industry with an efficient way to develop and test new technology concepts to enhance the capacity, safety, and operational needs of the ever-changing national airspace system.
Flight Deck Research Station in B-757
The 757 features a Flight Deck Research Station on the left, or captain’s, side of the cockpit.
Facilities used in the simulation-to-flight concept are:
* The 757, which features the Flight Deck Research Station (FDRS) on the left side of the cockpit for test subjects to evaluate flight systems and operational procedures. The 757 also contains the Transport Research System (TRS), the research computers and data collection systems used to support experiments and tests in the Flight Deck Research Station.
* The Research System Integration Laboratory (RSIL), a special-purpose laboratory that contains a ground-based version of the TRS, is used for the integration and preflight validation of key hardwre and software systems required for simulation and/or flight tests.
* The Cockpit Motion Facility (CMF), a multiple-cab fixed- and motion-based flight simulation laboratory that contains the RSIL, the Integration Flight Deck (IFD) simulator cab and the Research Flight Deck (RFD) simulator cab.
* The IFD cab closely resembles the 757 flight deck and is used in support of flight testing on the ARIES and for aircraft systems integration studies.
* The RFD cab is an advanced subsonic transport flight deck used for full-crew-workload and full-aircraft-systems integration development and tests by the research community.
o Four research documentation video cameras are on the 757, three may be arranged anywhere within or on the airplane, and one on the tail that provides a “bird’s eye view” of the wings and front of the ARIES 757. Eight video recorders support the cameras, flight displays, and other data collection.
o Over 1,000 different data parameters are recorded throughout a research flight. Additional different parameters may be specified for recording during tests.
o Twelve test pallets/research work stations are in the baseline layout. Others are added depending on research needs.
o The 757 is 155’3″ long, and 44’6″ high at its tallest point, the tail. It measures 124’10” wingtip to wingtip.
For more information, contact the NASA Langley Office of Public Affairs at (757) 864-6124. Visit the web site at .
An aeronautical engineer, Joe Vialls (alias), elaborates on the theory of remote-controlled planes.
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:
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 them 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.
Although a Home Run system could operate in the 9/11 Boeing planes, the system was not able to override any human cockpit control of the aircraft. However in 9/11, real live hijackers were involved, and these hijackers were able to wrest control of the planes from the legitimate pilots, so overriding human control of the aircraft was not a matter of concern for the conspirators.
The hijacking had been carefully planned, with every eventuality that could arise taken into consideration, and factored into the planning. There had been much forethought in the setting up of this false flag: from the concealment of the weapons on the planes beforehand – the weapons the hijackers employed on the crew and passengers with the intent to take decisive and quick control of the aircraft – to the disabling of the transponder and the emergency notification system, a task they had to complete promptly in order to prevent any chance of early interception by US defense jets.
This wasn’t some Mickey Mouse operation but a mission executed by experts who had practised it into the ground so that they could do it blindfolded. There were live rehearsals in actual airliners. Nothing was left to chance. Hence, when the time came to execute the mission, it would all go smoothly – without a single hitch. There would have been too many variables, too many chances of things going wrong for 9/11 to have been the work of amateurs.
It appears that at least one farsighted government had concerns about the potential for abuse of the Home Run hijack-recovery system. The Germans replaced the American version of the Home Run system that came with the planes they purchased from the US, with one that was under their control:
“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.
It is instructive at this point to look at System Planning Corporation (SPC), a company that makes a Home Run type system.
Interestingly, Dov Zakheim, the former Pentagon Comptroller under whom 2.3 trillion dollars went missing, was once 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.
The company’s parallel product, the Flight Termination System (FTS), enables system-equipped aircraft to be safely landed on any suitable runway in the world—regardless of the availability of ground-based navigational or landing aids (VOR, ILS, MLS, etc.).
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 centerline during landing.
The CTS/FTS remote-control system is capable of controlling up to 8 airborne vehicles—including airliners—simultaneously from ground-based or airborne (AWACS) positions.
[“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.
[NB: The ground station technology for CTS/FTS was developed by Raytheon under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. A government-industry team accomplished the first precision approach/auto-land by a civil aircraft using this system on August 25, 2001 at Holloman AFB, NM. A FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft demonstrated hundred percent system proficiency by executing six full auto-lands using the JPALS ground station.
SPC produced remote control airborne vehicle technologies, and Zakheim had the Pentagon means to pay for them. Also, System Planning Corporation markets the technology to take over the controls of an airborne vehicle already in flight. For example the Flight Termination System technology could literally hijack the hijackers and land the plane safely wherever it wanted.
The Flight Termination System can be used with the CTS technology that can actually control up to eight vehicles at the same time. Just go to SPC’s site..It’s all there, better than United Flight 93 or Oliver Stone’s sleepy World Trade Center. It all comes back now: the technology developed in the late ‘70s after the first terror hijackings that then got into the wrong hands. And Zakheim’s proximity to what Stephen St. John calls the Command Control Communications Network in DC interwoven with a cousin network of Zionic if not bionic neo-cons.
In the link above, the two multinationals 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.)
Were the 9/11 planes under remote control before and during their flights? This would have added another layer of control to the one that the Israelis already had by having access to the FCS on board the planes.
They were certainly able to fly the planes by autopilot. And all the flight control and guidance systems were in place in the planes for them to be flown by remote control. The Israelis had only to hack into the datalinks. Having done so, they could have flown the planes from an external vantage point.
Modifying the planes’ computer hardware and software and the electronic wiring on the planes would not have been hard to do if the planes had been in the conspirators’ hands prior to their fateful journeys, and we know the Israelis had ample opportunity, as all four 9/11 airports’ security was managed by an Israeli company, a company headed by a Jew with Zionist connections.
Then there is the fact that the planes stopped sending a transponder signal at some point after they had been taken over. The ability to do this assumes the hijackers had sophisticated knowledge of the operational controls of the aircraft or that the system had been compromised long ahead of the hijacking – programmed to stop working at some preset future point in time. All these factors point squarely to the Israelis and away from the accused Arabs.
History of the registration of the four 9/11 planes
As a footnote, it would be interesting to know the full history of the four 9/11 planes: where they had originated from, which countries had previously been in possession of them, and we know El Al flew a fleet of Boeings at the time of 9/11 ….
El Al set to operate fewer types in major fleet cost-cutting exercise. (El Al IIsrael Airlines aims to cut costs by reducing number of aircraft types)
Source: Flight International
Publication Date: 13-FEB-01
El Al set to operate fewer types in major fleet cost-cutting exercise.(El Al IIsrael Airlines aims to cut costs by reducing number of aircraft types)(Brief Article)
COPYRIGHT 2001 Reed Business Information Ltd.
Arie Egozi/TEL AVIV
El Al is planning to save money by selling its Boeing 757 and 767 fleets and boosting its 737s and 777s to reduce the number of aircraft types it operates.
The Israeli national airline operates six all-Boeing fleets – 737s, 747-200s, 747-400s, 757s, 767s and 777s…
Is the date of the report – 13 Feb 2001 – significant? Did the Trojan Horse aircraft come from the Israelis’ own national fleet, already outfitted with all the electronics and hardware needed to carry out the electronic hijacking of the planes?
2.3 missing trillions
SPC (System Planning Corporation)