Who Flew the Planes?

[Kevin Fenton]

Atta & Co, Remote Control or Good Pilots?

There are three competing arguments about who flew the planes. None of them are very good, but I think the third option – that Al Qaeda used good pilots on 9/11 – is the least bad one.

(1) Atta & Co.
Outline:
The official account says that the planes were flown by Atta, Al Shehri, Hanjour and Jarrah, who had trained as pilots of smaller, slower aircraft, but had used Boeing simulators. Hanjour and Jarrah had also made several reconnaissance flights over the relevant areas. There is no direct evidence that the four named hijackers were at the controls or even in the cockpit, but the official account simply assumes that, because they could fly and the other hijackers allegedly couldn’t, they must have been the ones flying the planes.
Problems:
(1) None of the four hijacker-pilots had ever flown an aircraft remotely similar to the 767s and 757s used on 9/11. It is therefore hard to imagine they flew such demanding aircraft with such precision.
(2) Even if we accept that three of the four pilots just “got lucky”, it seems improbable that a competent organisation such as Al Qaeda would send operatives clearly lacking the necessary skills on such an important mission on the off chance they might get lucky.
(3) Three sources (flight attendant call during hijack, combined lists of hijackers, list of hijackers living in Washington area) indicate that there were 6 hijackers on American 77. Alternatively, there is evidence to suggest that the supposed pilot, Hani Hanjour, did not have a ticket and/or boarding card and/or did not check in or go through security. While this does not have a direct impact on the other three planes, if we suggest that American 77 was flown by a competent pilot using a stolen identity (the real Salem al Hazmi was clearly not on American 77), then we should also consider whether this was not the case on the other three planes as well.
(4) Who is the mysterious “Mosear Caned” (Mansour Khaled?) who was originally on the list of American 77 hijackers instead of Hanjour and why did he then disappear from the manifest altogether?
(5) The Hamburg cell contained at least one professional pilot, Atif Ahmed bin Mansour, who, when on active duty, was stationed at Chakala Air Force Base in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Chakala is home to the PAF’s fleet of Boeings. This is intriguing at the very least. AFAIK he has never been made available to the FBI, or any other body investigating 9/11. Are we to believe he had no role in the attacks?

(2) Remote control
Outline:
The argument is that the four planes were flown by remote control, as the four named hijacker pilots were unable to fly the planes themselves. There are various alternatives here, for example (1) the named hijackers were/were not actually on board the planes, (2) the planes were/were not swapped for other planes/missiles, (3) the named hijackers actually tried/did not try to hijack the planes, (4) some aircraft near the hijacked planes had/did not have a role in this, etc.
Problems:
(1) There is no actual evidence for remote control. The argument is merely that Atta et al. couldn’t fly, so remote control is the only answer. Proponents of this argument do not examine other alternatives.
(2) Whilst it is possible to fly a plane by remote control, I am not aware of any test flight of a remotely controlled Boeing 757 or 767.

(3) Good pilots
Outline:
The planes were flown by Islamic radicals, but not the four named by the FBI; or, at least, those named by the FBI had better piloting skills than is officially claimed.
Reasoning:
(1) The hijackers attended “hijacking training” in Afghanistan. Whilst reports of this training often lack details, one indicates that it included training in piloting skills on the national Afghan carrier Arianna, which was controlled by Al Qaeda and operated Boeing aircraft. This would be a perfectly logical step for Al Qaeda.
(2) There was at least one hijacker proved to be using a stolen identity on each plane. We have zero information about the real identity of these hijackers, as the FBI (and everybody else) declined to pursue this line of inquiry. Such mystery hijackers may have been good pilots and I think this is the logical conclusion.
(3) Six of the hijackers have the same or similar name as a person who attended a US military institution: Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Penascola. Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base. A man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Airforce Base in San Antonio. A man called Mohammad Atta attended Maxwell Airforce Base in Alabama and an Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio. The US Defense Department's denial was very weak and only said that they were "probably not" the same people as the hijackers. In addition, the denial referred to the suspects whose names were "similar" to the US base alumni. What's more, Hopsicker found a witness who positively identified Atta as being at Maxwell. It's not hard to see why this would be covered up. I find it unlikely that all six of these guys had been to the US bases (I guess there may well have been some cases of mistaken identity), but I think a couple may well have attended them. It's also worth pointing out that the alleged hijackers were Saudis from a relatively poor part of the country from which lots of young men join the military.
(4) Atta's Florida girlfriend Amanda Keller though Atta was a better pilot than he let on, as he sometimes seemed to be giving flying lessons, rather than taking him.
(5) The FBI believed that it was meant to find the things in Atta’s bags that were not loaded onto American 11 due to the tightness of his connection from Portland – “Everything we found we were meant to find”. However, his luggage did not contain anything specifically related to the “planes operation”, but lots of things, such as a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft and a slide-rule flight calculator, related to his flying planes. Why was Atta deliberately planting evidence against himself and why did this evidence only relate to his flying, not the planes operation itself? When a person plants evidence, the reason is to mislead. Therefore, it appears that Atta is trying to mislead us as to his ability to fly a 767.
(6) The usual way of maintaining operational security for a mission like the “planes operation” would be to keep the teams for each plane separate, so that if (a member of) the team for one plane were discovered, this would not lead to the other plotters, who would be able to complete the mission or flee. However, this was not done before 9/11 and the known members of the teams intermingled more or less freely until a couple of days before the attacks. This presents us with two problems (1) if they weren’t even very good covert operatives, then it makes it all the more surprising they weren’t discovered, and (2) this is basic stuff that would occur to a 16-year-old, how come they’re making such mistakes? I would resolve this problem by suggesting that it was not the teams that were intended to be separated from each other, but the expendable “muscle” (the named 19 hijackers) was separated from the business end of the operation – the real pilots. In fact the existence of the real pilots was so well disguised that the (very cursory) FBI investigation did not uncover it.
(7) The “official” line is that after training for a couple of weeks in Afghanistan bin Laden put Atta in charge of the largest mission in the history of covert operations. This is an unusual idea because at that time Atta did not have the requisite skills to do the job (except the ability to live in the west) and bin Laden and his lieutenants hardly knew him. In fact it’s so stupid that it was not even believed by the 9/11 Commission, which suggested that Atta may have been to Afghanistan previously. However, if we think of Atta as the frontman for 9/11, rather than the leader, then this makes sense. Somebody went to Europe to recruit such frontmen and bring them back to Afghanistan – the meeting there was not by chance.

Obviously, I’m not saying that I’ve assembled enough evidence to prove 100% that Al Qaeda used good pilots on 9/11, but I think I’m ahead of the other two scenarios.

Why would Al Qaeda hide the identities of the real pilots?
(1) Without the real pilots, the 19 named hijackers would be incapable of carrying out the actual mission, so counter-terrorist operations would not place high importance on dealing with them. Indeed, this was the very conclusion reached by Egyptian intelligence in its warning to the US before 9/11.
(2) The real pilots were connected to organisations and individuals who facilitated their participation in the “planes operation”, but who did not wish to be associated with it publicly. If we knew who the real pilots were, that would immediately lead us to these organisations and individuals. The organisations I’m thinking of are the ISI and the Pakistani Air Force. The individuals are Al Qaeda’s main moneymen back in Saudi.

[petgoat]

1. Good work, Kevin, as (almost) always, which leads me to this

question: you cite no sources. What intelligence agencies are your
sources? You seem too astute for an amateur.

[Kevin Fenton]

2. I thought you were a woman!

I wrote it when I had no internet access, which is why there are no links. Here they are:

Atta & Co:
Outline:
The official account can obviously be found in the CR. The main part about the recon flights is on page 242.
(3) The three sources that indicate there were 6 hijackers are:
(a) “At 9:12 Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals.” CR page 9.
(b) “August 2001: At least six 9/11 hijackers, including all of those who boarded Flight 77, live in Laurel, Maryland, from about this time. They reportedly include Hani Hanjour, Majed Moqed, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmi.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Hanjour&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+ (the “Co-op Hani Link”)
(c) The final list of hijackers you know, the original one including “Mosear Caned” can be found here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html

The claim that Hanjour did not have a ticket can be found on the Co-op Hani Link on Sept. 13.
That there is no record of him checking in and receiving a boarding card can be found on page 452, endnote 11 of the CR.
You can find pictures of HH at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour

Wikipedia also has the goods on Salem al-Hazmi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_al-Hazmi

(4) Mosear Caned I’ve already dealt with.

(5) You can get info about Atif bin Mansour here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x58758
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56724
It’s also worth pointing out in this context that the head of the Pakistani Air Force died in mysterious circumstances after 9/11. Controversial author Gerald Posner claims he had met bin Laden (easily believable) and that he was one of the men named under interrogation by Abu Zubaida (along with the three Saudi Princes who all died at the same time).

(3) Good pilots
(1) There’s lots of info about the hijackers going to Afghanistan.
PT says:
“There also are reports suggesting that Ariana Airlines might have been used to train Islamic militants as pilots.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Ariana&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+
The LA Times article it comes from is available here, but only if you pay, and I’m too tight:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/90610718.html?did=90610718&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Nov+18%2C+2001&author=STEPHEN+BRAUN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=RESPONSE+TO+TERROR%3B+SUNDAY+REPORT%3B+Long+Before+Sept.+11%2C+Bin+Laden+Aircraft+Flew+Under+the+Radar
However, the abstract is telling:
“With the Taliban's blessing, Bin Laden effectively had hijacked Ariana, the national civilian airline of Afghanistan. For four years, according to former U.S. aides and exiled Afghan officials, Ariana's passenger and charter flights ferried Islamic militants, arms, cash and opium through the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Members of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network were provided false Ariana identification that gave them free run ...”

Ariana had three Boeing 727s, which it purchased from Air France in 1993
“In 1993, Ariana purchased three Boeing 727-200 from Air France, with the pilots trained by the Royal Jordanian Air Academy in Amman.”
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1D7G8x9xfYcJ:www.flyariana.com/history.htm+Ariana+Air+France&hl=en&client=firefox-a

(2) In addition to Salem al-Hazmi (American 77) at least one other hijacker with false identity on each plane is:
Abdulaziz al-Omari (American 11) his passport was stolen in Denver
Ahmed al-Nami (United 93) an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines
Saeed al-Ghamdi (United 93) coincidently also a pilot
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
Mohand al-Shehri (United 175) but this was merely claimed by the Saudis, I can’t find an interview with him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohand_al-Shehri

(3) The list of hijackers with US military training (or the same/similar names as people with US military training) was taken from page 136 of Welcome to Terrorland by Daniel Hopsicker.

(4) The statement by Amanda Keller that she thought Atta might have been a better pilot than he let on is also in Welcome to Terrorland, but I can’t find the page now.

(5) Information about the trail left by the hijackers can be found here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=Atta+Boston&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+
September 11-13, 2001: Hijackers Leave A Clear Trail of Evidence
It seems that Al-Shehhi left an Arabic language flight manual and a pass giving access to restricted areas at the airport in his car, too.
Actually the quote is, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately – for the FBI to chase.”
The full list is well worth a read.

(6) The fact that the hijackers were not very good at operational security is taken from various sources, particularly Chain of Command by Sy Hersh – the Intelligence Failure chapter starts on page 73. “The Al Qaeda terrorists … had violated a fundamental rule of clandestine operations. Far from working independently and maintaining rigid communications security, the terrorists, as late as the summer before the attacks, apparently mingled openly and had not yet decided which flights to target. By the spring of 2002, many investigators had come to believe that the planning for September 11th appears to have been far more ad hoc that was at first assumed. A senior FBI official … agreed that serious and potentially fatal errors were made by the terrorists… If they’re so good, why did they intermingle? … Are they ten feet tall? They’re not.” Page 92

(7) The Commission calls the Hamburg cell becoming core members of the 9/11 plot so quickly “remarkable” on page 166 and speculates there might have been “some earlier meeting” at the top of the next page. They then go on to mention a gap in Atta’s past, in February and March of 1998.

I can assure you I am not a spy.

[petgoat]

3. Good Work

I didn't mean to suggest you were a spy but only to pay a rather beery
compliment to work of a level of thoroughness and readable compression
that makes it look like it was prepared by a professional analyst.

[pox americana]

4. Yes, that horrid al Qaeda, I just knew it was them.

Kevin if you didn't have internet access how did you post it in the first place?

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Two weeks ago

I wrote it two weeks ago (or so) after I had moved to a new flat which did not then have a telephone line or LAN link. I obviously have internet access now.

[spooked911]

6. Other possibilities:

1) some sort of military missile/plane was used that was "cloaked" with a hologram to look like a passenger jet
2) no planes were used at all, and all of 9/11 involved carefully planted and precisely detonated bombs seeded with a few aircraft parts; videos of flight 175 were forgeries.

Both of these, while very high-tech and complicated, get around many of the problems you raise.

I'm not saying I believe these, but they are formal possibilities, and in particular, the first one is hard to rule out.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. No evidence

There is no evidence to suggest either (1) or (2). There are merely alleged discrepancies in the evidence for the official theory, with reference to which some people claim that remote control/holograms/forgeries are the only answer. If there were any evidence specifically in favour of remote control/holograms/forged videos, I would be only too happy to look at it.

Four planes disappeared and there are four plane-shaped holes with bits of plane lying around them. I find it hard to resist the conclusion that said planes disappeared into said holes.

btw, I'm reading Among the Heroes at the moment and I've just got to the bit where he disbeleives Greene could land United 93, as he had never flown a jet before (Greene, not Longman, obviously). So how does he think Hanjour brought the plane in under the radar and crashed into the side of the Pentagon? The mind boggles.

[janedoe]

10. Evidence?

Evidence? How about logic?
"If there were any evidence specifically in favour of remote control/holograms/forged videos, I would be only too happy to look at it."

There have been quite a few posts, here in this forum, with evidence showing that the capability for remote control exists. Perhaps you're just checking on our memory of these. Surely you've "taken a look at it." Hmmm.... Why would you want to deter others from considering the possibility of remote control? :(

From your original post, above,

(1) There is no actual evidence for remote control. The argument is merely that Atta et al. couldn’t fly, so remote control is the only answer. Proponents of this argument do not examine other alternatives.
(2) Whilst it is possible to fly a plane by remote control, I am not aware of any test flight of a remotely controlled Boeing 757 or 767.

It's clear from your statement(2) that you are aware this capability exists.
And, knowing such technology exists, why do you casually dismiss remote control as a possibility, here? I fail to see your logic.

Your statement(1) illuminates your absence of logic. Your statement(2) also fails the logic test. Or are you saying that absolutely no planes hit the WTC because you did not witness any test flights of planes hitting the WTC?

[Kevin Fenton]

14. Akin to criminal investigation

What the "9/11 truth movement" does is akin to a criminal investigation - logic is not enough; evidence is what is required.

First off, I'm not denying that planes can be flown by remote control. Model planes can obviously be flown by remote control, there are plenty of unmanned aerial vehicles and there were the Global Hawk tests. However, like I said earlier, "I am not aware of any test flight of a remotely controlled Boeing 757 or 767." Given that you did not draw my attention to this, I guess you are not aware of any such flight either.

The argument for remote control is usually made like this:
"(1) If the hijackers are who the FBI says they are and (2) if they had the skills the FBI claims then (conclusion) they could not have flown the planes, as they did not have the required skills." Condition (1) is demonstrably wrong - (some of) the hijackers were clearly not who they said they were - and condition (2) is also arguably wrong. In addition, it can be argued that the conclusion does not necessarily follow even if the two conditions are met. Therefore, I am sceptical of the remote control argument.

"There have been quite a few posts, here in this forum, with evidence showing that the capability for remote control exists."
I'm sure I could prove to your full satisfaction that the capability for Arabs learning to fly exists. However, this would not necessarily prove that the Arabs on the planes could actually fly. We should require evidence that the specific Arabs on the specific planes could actually fly and were doing so. Similarly, when assessing the remote control argument, we should require evidence that these specific planes were remote controlled (not just that there is a theoretical possibility of remote control of diffrent types of planes).
Examples of possible evidence indicating remote control:
(1) The planes were being manouvered in a manner associated with remote control;
(2) One of the passengers making a phone call noted unusual behaviour on the part of the hijacker pilots, for example they were standing in the cockpit scratching their heads and looking worriedly at the instrumentation;
(3) A person claiming to have participated in the attacks/preparatory tests flights of 757s or 767s goes public;
(4) One of the hijacker pilots is heard to say on the cockpit voice recorder, "Bloody hell, what's going on here, I'm not flying this thing!"; etc.

As I am unaware of such evidence, for the moment I have put remote control on the backburner in favour of another option for which there is some evidence, although I certainly wouldn't claim that the evidence for "good pilots" is conclusive, as I point out in the original post.

[sabbat hunter]

8. forgeries?

how can they be forgeries when there were on the spot witnesses that saw the 2nd plane hit?

IMO it was clearly a passenger jet that hit the second tower.

and if they were all faked, where are all the passengers and crew on all 4 flights?

[Kevin Fenton]

9. Agree completely

IMO they were all clearly passenger jets.

[philb]

11. Questions not answered; relevant to your suggestion/question?

Did the passengers listed as on Flight 11 board the plane that hit WTC1?
Where is the evidence that they did?
Isn't there is at least as much evidence that they didn't as that they did??
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html

Was Woody's flight X real? if so, which plane and which passengers?
Was this the flight 11 from Gate 26 that had the passengers?
see Woody's thread.

Why did FAA and NORAD think Flight 11 continued on past N.Y. and was headed for D.C? and scrambled jets to intercept it? What was the plane headed to D.C.? Why didn't the NORAD jets intercept it?


Why did FAA think Flight 77 went down in Kentucky? Did it?
If so what was it that flew to Pentagon?
Was the Danish foreign minister wrong about the time of the first Pentagon blast? see the thread
and http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html

[sabbat hunter]

12. if the passengers

werent on the plane, where are they along with the crew?

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Various

I've had a quick look at the alleged evidence that there were two American 11s and I'm not terribly impressed by it. Basically it's (1) one report with a different gate number, which was the number of the gate the flight usually left from, (2) some passengers are listed as boarding after the plane left, (3) there are alleged discrepancies between the calls made by Ong and Sweeney, however, they were sitting in different parts of the plane, so it's no surprise they gave different accounts.

We can obviously contest the "official" evidence (for example by claiming that the photos of Atta and "Alomari" in Portland are faked) and in some cases we can do so successfully (e.g. Alomari himself obviously wasn't on the flight, but at work in Riyadh), but I'm reasonably satisfied that it was American 11 that hit the North Tower.

I very much doubt that Flight X at Cleveland is real.

"Why did FAA and NORAD think Flight 11 continued on past N.Y. and was headed for D.C?"
NORAD allegedly thought so because the FAA told them so. However, NORAD didn't know that's what it thought until the Commission told it so and the FAA didn't know that's what it told NORAD until the Commission told it so. Allegedly, the rumour started at a central FAA office in Washington (don't know which one); the specific source was never found. If you ask me, the Commission's out of its ass.

"and scrambled jets to intercept it?"
I don't think they did. They just scrambled some jets without giving them a clear mission and the Commission thought up some stupid reason afterwards.

"What was the plane headed to D.C.?"
American 77.

"Why didn't the NORAD jets intercept it?"
That can be answered on several levels.
(1) Because they didn't get close enough.
(2) Because there was lots of confusion and the people who should have been in charge (Rummy and Myers) completely abdicated responsibility for making the correct decisions, which, coupled with their later ducking and diving, I find very suspicious.
(3) Because the hijackers had a really good plan that involved turning the transponder off over a radar gap, descending to VFR altitude and exiting the radar gap on a different heading.

"Why did FAA think Flight 77 went down in Kentucky?"
(1) Because the hijackers had a really good plan that involved turning the transponder off over a radar gap, descending to VFR altitude and exiting the radar gap on a different heading.

"Did it?"
No.

[Bouvet_Island]

13. That is an interesting summary.

I appreciate how it prepares for real discussion while it is not entirely uncommon that provocative statements about this or that theory is included.

I think though that to claim there are technical problems with remote controlling these planes is not correct. We are after all talking about an inverted fligt simulator and some ccds etc, as well as some way of getting enough signals both ways. I think it would be possible without too much fuss in the 60s, at least in air control.

The hologram theory and what it implies is not an example of a theory one should feel one has to mention though.

Shortly, it would not be a manageable approach to accomplishing what could much much easilier be accomplished with proven lo tech. Like just putting some wings and airline parts on the missile, if you would for some reason need to use a missile to make a whole in WTC. How could you insure against a hologram being filmed or photographed from a really bad angle? With the entire press on its way or already at manhattan?

Also, I am learning 3D and have a fair amount of insight on all historical attempts at this type of thing. The technology suggested here would necessarily have to be from UFOs, and so my point isn't that I am able to prove there was no UFOs, but that it would make incredibly little sense to use and I take it destroy a piece of this incredibly valuable equipment when you could just take some comparably 1$ a piece boeings with a few extra people in them on top of the 3000. There would as proven be no unmanageble parts to carrying this out.

War have budgets, that is a hard fact.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Remote control

"I think though that to claim there are technical problems with remote controlling these planes is not correct. We are after all talking about an inverted fligt simulator and some ccds etc, as well as some way of getting enough signals both ways. I think it would be possible without too much fuss in the 60s, at least in air control."
My argument is not that it is impossible to fit a Boeing 757 or 767 with remote control. I imagine it should be possible, but many technical projects do not reach fruition and, if such a project were started, there is no guarantee it would be completed. However, I am not aware of any such attempt - why would anybody want to remote control a Boeing?

Such project would necessarily require God knows how much money and several test flights and would have to run several years. I really doubt they could just roll up a couple of hours before the planes took off and patch a couple of circuits into the instrumentation. It would require either (1) that the plot went back years, or (2) it was able to make use of some existing project to remote control Boeing aircraft - but why would such project be (a) in existence, (b) secret?

AFAIK all the money that has gone into remote control has been spent on planes with specific military uses, for example the Predator drone. I am not aware of any clear military uses of 757s and 767s.

I am sure that further evidence will emerge and alter the balance between the three competing ideas. For example, the alleged hijacker pilot of United 175 was in the military. If it emerges that he was a pilot in the UAE airforce, then his flying United 175 would suddenly appear much more credible.

[Christophera]

18. Good Information-Generally, Hydraulic Over Hydraulic Servos, Not Easy To

remote.

The 747 is a "fly by wire" plane but not the 757-767, they are hydraulic servo controls and represent a major engineering feat to remote those planes. It has been done experimentally in the 1980', and yes, years of testing with low reliability due to complexity.

Another aspect that makes remotes unlikely is the sequence of the towers falling. The impact sequence and demolition sequence are backwards. If the planes were remoted the pilots would have been well versed and exercised as well as controlled. With Muslims flying, hey ....... the program is in their hands.

The first plane was supposed to hit the south tower first withi the ruse because it was demoed first, but it didn't, and the second plane showed up all ready to whack the north tower but it was already hit so it had to do that radical turn to get to the south tower.

An airline pilot I know stated that turn was as radical as can be expected from that plane and the system has overides to allow that performance. He did say that a single pilot might not be able to pull it off because another arm is needed to run the throttles down and back up again while the aerobatic type turning manuever is executed. A copilot to operate the throttles is all that is needed to overcome this.

[Kevin Fenton]

19. The wrong tower fell first

"a major engineering feat to remote those planes. It has been done experimentally in the 1980', and yes, years of testing with low reliability due to complexity"
Would you have a link for the tests?

"Another aspect that makes remotes unlikely is the sequence of the towers falling. The impact sequence and demolition sequence are backwards. If the planes were remoted the pilots would have been well versed and exercised as well as controlled. With Muslims flying, hey ....... the program is in their hands."
The impact sequence and demolition sequence are definitely backwards (aka "the wrong tower fell first"). It seems to me that the bombers didn't know the planes were coming.

"The first plane was supposed to hit the south tower first withi the ruse because it was demoed first, but it didn't, and the second plane showed up all ready to whack the north tower but it was already hit so it had to do that radical turn to get to the south tower."
Surely, the plane's heading was too far to the east of north to "comfortably" hit the south tower and it would have been even more difficult for it to hit the north tower (which was west of the south tower)?

"An airline pilot I know stated that turn was as radical as can be expected from that plane and the system has overides to allow that performance. He did say that a single pilot might not be able to pull it off because another arm is needed to run the throttles down and back up again while the aerobatic type turning manuever is executed. A copilot to operate the throttles is all that is needed to overcome this."
I think the difficulty of the turn depends on how fast the plane was going and there are conflicting reports of that. Most reports about the hijackers indicate that there were two of them in each cockpit. If the second guy wasn't a co-pilot with some flying training, then what was he doing in the cockpit? Making coffee, keeping the pilot entertained with a series of witty anecdotes?

[AZCat]

20. Sort of...

The 757 and 767s are "fly-by-wire" but they aren't fully digital (like the B777 and the A320). Some of the control surfaces are digital fly-by-wire (to enable auto-trim, etc) but not the big ones.

The A320 won't let the plane operate outside a particular envelope, but the whole Boeing line leaves ultimate control with the operator (not the FMS).

[FogerRox]

82. yes- exactly

I now a few Comm. Pilots. WE talked about emergency situations-- say- micro bursts during landing-- one pilot remarked about his testing on a simulator - he is rated on the 777, 767, as co-pilot- 737 & 757 pilot-- he said these planes are capable of loops and rolls-- that dont exceed about 1.3 gees--

[tofubo]

87. who is the real "Michael Goldfarb"

former chief of staff of the Federal Aviation Administration ??
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/july-dec98/swissair_9-3.html

iraq correspondent ??
http://www.insideout.org/documentaries/ahmad/script1.asp

"rods from god" proponent ??
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5700&R=C673D12

working @ darpa on robots and remote control that can have "situational awareness"
http://www.cio.com/archive/101598/trendlines.html

or research assistant over @ the pnac
http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

i don't know, you tell me

[k-robjoe]

16. Flight numbers reversed in FBI affidavit

"Flight numbers reversed in FBI affidavit

(...)

"...At ...8:48 am UA175 struck a tower...
...At approximately 9:08 am flight 11 struck the other tower..."

"...This document was lodged in the US District Court of Maine by FBI Agent, James K. Lechner..."

http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1689

[Andre II]

21. Interesting

Hi,

interesting work.
Two points.
You don't refute at all the remote control possibility.
It would perfectly explain the switching off of the transponder.
The technique is there. Years before 911 already.
And if you assume plane swap (using remote control without the assumption that the planes were actually swept seems nonsense to me) then you don't even need a Boeing 767.

And I'd like to know why do you think the US would go through all these contradictions and lies to cover up the fact who flew the planes in reality if your theory is correct?

[Kevin Fenton]

22. Welcome to DU

Obviously, planes can be remote controlled. However, I'm not aware of any test flights of remote control 757s or 767s. Most remote control planes are purpose-built unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator. Also, there's nothing about the way the planes were flown to suggest they were being flown by remote control, for example they did not exhibit flight patterns typically associated with remote control, the calls from the passengers indicated there were hijackers in the cockpit, etc.

One of the planes (American 77) that switched off its transponder did so over a radar gap, it then appears to have descended to VFR altitude (7,000 feet, where it wouldn't be unusual that it didn't have a transponder) and exited the radar gap travelling in the opposite direction, which is why ATC didn't find it for so long. Two of the other planes (American 11 and United 93) appeared to have tried the same thing, but failed because the air traffic controllers were alerted by unusual transmissions beforehand. United 175 was diverted before it was hijacked, so it wasn't near its pre-assigned radar gap when it was hijacked. It makes a lot of sense for genuine hijackers to try to make the planes disappear after they are hijacked, as, in their mind, this should buy them the time they need to get to the target without being intercepted. That's why the idea the hijackers switched off the transponder makes sense to me.

"And I'd like to know why do you think the US would go through all these contradictions and lies to cover up the fact who flew the planes in reality if your theory is correct?"
Good question. Basically, the FBI investigation was cursory and barely scratched the surface because (1) the FBI is crap, (2) there were lots of nasty secrets (e.g. involving drugs, arms smuggling, Able Danger, the WTC was blown up and God knows what else) that a full investigation would have uncovered that some people just didn't want uncovering. So the investigation was shut down before it got anywhere. Also, there was no desire at the top to find the truth, they just wanted to invade Iraq (and then Iran and then North Korea) and a superficial investigation was enough for that.

[Andre II]

23. Remote Control

Hi,
As I said if you assume plane swap then the question of plane typ is irrelevant.
For the transponder: All planes could have been swaped.

Do you imply the hijackers knew the radar holes.

I certainly agree that the investigation was and is a big mess. Yet, I fail to see why the FBI should name Hanjour (only on September 14 btw) and not the real pilot? Even going through presenting a fat Hanjour with new hair on Dulles Airport running the risk that even the media would wake up. Though I admit that your theory has the advantage of explaining why the flight manifests aren't published.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. OK, I see now

"As I said if you assume plane swap then the question of plane typ is irrelevant."
It isn't. The planes looked like 757s and 767s when they were seen before they crashed.

"Do you imply the hijackers knew the radar holes."
Yes, it would be a natural thing for them to find out. Also, drug smugglers know radar holes and the hijackers associated with drug smugglers, from whom they could have got info about the radar holes.

"Yet, I fail to see why the FBI should name Hanjour (only on September 14 btw) and not the real pilot?"
Hanjour wasn't named originally because his name wasn't on the list of passengers who checked on for the flight (at least there is no record of the time he checked in - I assume this means there's no record of him checking in). I think the real pilot (or at least his alias) was named originally. Here is the CNN transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/bn.01.html
You can see that the fifth hijacker on American 77 is called Mosear Caned (probably a misspelling for Mansour Khaled or something). I don't know why his name wasn't on the list later. But it was at first and then it wasn't.

[Andre II]

25. How can people have identified the type of plane?

In the case of New York we certainly have enough different accounts of a small plane hitting the first tower. Do you think that the videos show defitintely a Boeing 767 (I asked innocently cause I'm not into planes at all).
At the Pentagon the same thing. Many people saw many different kind of planes. Given that they could have seen only less than a second (if the official speed is correct) than I find it hard to believe eg Timmerman that he could clearly from his appartement identify the type of the plane.

Just for better understanding: Do you think that smugglers have access to the highly secret radar coverage of the US airspace?

Hanjour wasn't listed. Funny that he wasn't on the manifest although he bought a ticket and even paid it cash according to FBI Mueller.
How come? I'd like to know. As I'd like to know as well how one can get a name so wrong to come up with Mosear Caned. And if it is indeed Khaled then what happened to him....?

[Kevin Fenton]

26. Video

The videos of United 175 approaching the South Tower clearly show a 767. The photos of the hole in the north tower show a hole that is the right size for a 767. The plane also appears to be a 767 (or similar aircraft) in the video. The holes in the Pentagon and Shanksville also appear to be about the right size for a 757. I'm sure that, if the planes were swapped, they were swapped for a plane of the same type painted in the same colours. The "small plane" idea comes from people who didn't have a good view of the hole or didn't realise that a big plane would make a hole smaller than it was.

"Do you think that smugglers have access to the highly secret radar coverage of the US airspace?"
I am sure of it. How else could they smuggle drugs? I'm not sure it's highly secret, though. All you have to do is ask a couple of ATCs.

Mosear Caned is just a phonetic spelling (there's a (ph) in the original transcript to indicate this). Mansour Khaled sounds like Mosear Caned, but the first name could be Masrur or something different.

[Andre II]

27. Boeing

Hi,

I still have a hard time identifying the exact type of plane in the video. And many witnesses speak of a small plane for the first hit.
The Pentagon hole. Well, let's say I don't share your opinion. Certainly not for UA 93. The crater is way too small and by no means a crater the plane could have created.
And also as since 20 a Boeing 707 could be remote controlled I have a hard time believing this wouldn't be possible for a 767 in 2001.

For the smugglers. Maybe you're right. So far I only assumed smugglers (save the CIA of course) would avoid the airspac but use the ground to cross the borders. Do you have any examples of smuggling with planes save the CIA planes?

I agree certainly on the Caned stuff.

[kerry_s]

30. Magic Shanksville Field

>>The holes in the Pentagon and Shanksville also appear to be about the right size for a 757.

Somebody asked: If some flight were swapped where are passengers? I have different question: If there WEREN'T swapped where are they? Where are their wreckages, debrises, where are remains of passengers...

Do you really believe that a plane can crash into the ground (shanskville) and fully disappear in it? ITS SIMPLY STUPID.
This is the first accident in history when a flight crashed into a ground and dissapeared.
If that ground was so soft, like a swamp, then the rescue squad should pull the wreckage out from the ground. But NO, it DISAPPEARED, it VAPORIZED IN GROUND. STUPID STUPID STUPID!

Maybe David Copperfield was co-pilot?

The only answer is that the so-called shanskville crater was not made by the impact of flight 93. Flight 93 exploded in air, shot down, but some stupid militaries created it to make a claim of fight accident...

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Shanksville

"If there WEREN'T swapped where are they? Where are their wreckages, debrises, where are remains of passengers..."
In pieces at the Pentagon and in Shanksville.

"Do you really believe that a plane can crash into the ground (shanskville) and fully disappear in it?"
It did not fully disappear, there were lots of bits of wreckage scattered about.

"If that ground was so soft, like a swamp, then the rescue squad should pull the wreckage out from the ground. But NO, it DISAPPEARED, it VAPORIZED IN GROUND. STUPID STUPID STUPID!"
The plane disintegrated into (mostly) small pieces. There are lots of reports of people finding bits afterwards.

"The only answer is that the so-called shanskville crater was not made by the impact of flight 93. Flight 93 exploded in air, shot down, but some stupid militaries created it to make a claim of fight accident..."
If it had been hit by an air-to-air missile, it would not have exploded, but continued to fly for a couple of minutes before crashing.

[Andre II]

38. I disagree

Please have a look at the thread analysing the crash site of UA 93 and please show how a plane can have caused the crater.

[Kevin Fenton]

41. Briefly

I'll go into it in more detail later, but I've seen the UA 93 crash site analysis and I don't think much of it. The papers always get things wrong, it's just no big deal.

[Andre II]

48. The papers always get things wrong

Kevin, you disappoint me here.
This is so a simple explanation for all and everything!
From what I can see the article uses many sources and so far I haven't found any single source that wasn't used.
So in all details, all witnesses and all accounts agree and we can come to the conclusion that a plane can't have caused th crater.
How can you simply try to refute this by saying "papers get it wrong"?
Actually on which source do you base your claim that there was a lot of debris at the crash site?
Is there any source the article doesn't mention that would prove it wrong??
Please show.
And btw as far as I can see in every single discussion John Doe always took the estimation that supported best the official theory not his own.
So, I hope you can come up with something more substantial and as substantial as I know from your own research so far.

[MrSammo1]

61. Pentagon and Shanksville

The absence of both jets suggests only one thing. What happened in both places wasn't fully part of the neocon plan. It was the result of opposition within our government.

If it had been part of the plan, real jets would have been used. Instead we have what appears to be a cover up of the facts.

Did you happen to see the video of the tree in front of the Pentagon wall?

As a bonus you can watch the SS stand down during the JFK murder.


http://911busters.com/SanFran04/video/IQ1_08_MARK_TAYLOR_34.34_.html

Feel free to email me if you want to learn more.

DU is chock full of government shills.

[kerry_s]

31. Wrong, "Mansour Caned" was Midhar Khalid

2 quotation from your source:

"CNN managed to grab a list of the names of the 18 suspected hijackers..."

"The way this is working out, there were five hijackers on two planes, four hijackers on two others."

So on flight 77 were only four hijackers. Their names are write up phonetically, from hearing. So wo had

Cammid Al-Madar / Mosear Caned (ph),
Majar Mokhed (ph),
Nawar Al Hazni (ph)
and Salem Al Hazni (ph)

who are:

Khalid Al-Midhar, P20,s.12b
Majed Moqed, P19, s.12a
Nawaq Al-Hamzi, P12
Salem Al-Hamzi, P13, s.5f

But there is still probability that "Khalid al Midhar" was really Khalid Mansour. Theses surnames are very close.

[kerry_s]

32. But... as well Majed Moqed.

Well, "Mosear Caned (ph)" was as well Majed Moqed. Somenbody had difficulties to spelled his named and try 2 times:

Mosear Caned (ph), Majar Mokhed (ph), ...

[Kevin Fenton]

33. 5 hijackers originally on American 77

The quote is
"American Airlines flight number 77. Cammid Al-Madar, and Mosear Caned (ph), Majar Mokhed (ph), Nawar Al Hazni (ph) and Salem Al Hazni (ph)."
That's five, there's no suggestion that one of the names is read out twice - "Cammid Al-Madar" is Khalid Al-Midhar and "Majar Mokhed" is Majed Moqed; "Mosear Caned" is somebody else. I guess "Mosear Caned's" name was initially supposed to be held back (as were some other names), but somebody just forgot to delete from the list supplied to CNN.
There are also photos of five alleged hijackers at Dulles that morning.

[kerry_s]

42. Four, Five, Maye Six...

Kelli Arena was talking about 18 hijackers and 4 on two planes... so I guessed that 5 people on fl 77 is simpply form of misspelling - we had such misspelling earlier:

"Marwanal Shehhi on the list as well. They are looking an awful lot alike here, Leon. Marwan Al Shehhi, a UAE passport..."

Marwanal Shehhi
Marwan Al Shehhi

>>There are also photos of five alleged hijackers at Dulles that morning.

(1) we've got these pictures after 3 year of denying
(2) there are only FOUR MEN

Khalid Al-Midhar,
Nawaq Al-Hamzi,
Salem Al-Hamzi,
and "Hani Hanjour",



Pictures of Majed Moqed weren't showed

(3) we were told that only 4 men was on flight 77, and than it was changed to 5 men, cause non of this four probably could fly at all

(4) cell phone from flight assistant claimed 6 hijackers were on board (and 3 on flight 93)

[Kevin Fenton]

50. Amercian 77

It's just about impossible, based on the evidence made available, to determine how many hijackers were on American 77 - it could be 4, 5 or 6, as you point out. However, I don't think it's especially important at the moment, because it appears they may well not have been who the official account says they were.

(1) "Mosear Caned" is so different to the other names that it doesn't sound like a repetition to me.
(2) Some articles claim there is a picture of MM, but I've had a quick look and I think you might be right about this.
(3) Also, it seems that Hanjour did actually have a ticket (but there's no record of the time he checked in).
(4) Yes, that's true, but she may have been mistaken.

[Old and In the Way]

28. Remote Control

Vigilant Guardian, the US military simulation underway on 9/11 has hijacked airplanes as a component of the drill. So....why wouldn't they be testing the ability to remotely overtake aircraft that have been hijacked by terrorists?

What about all of the Raytheon employees that were on one of the flights? I believe I've read that many were directly involved with RC technology programs. Now, if that was the case and they were on-board to evaluate the technology in a real world test, and it was an inside job....well, this is one way of getting rid of people who would have had incriminating evidence to support this fact.

Regarding the alleged terrorists, many posts have shown evidence that they were not particularly religious Muslims. There's also evidence that some had connections to the US military Foreign Language Schools. What if they were, in fact, CIA/DEA assets? If so, it could very well be that they were role playing on 9/11...their "job" could have been to play designated "terrorists" for those flights. Odd that none would contact their families to say goodbye and tell them they were on a mission for Allah...

What about the C-130's? This could have been the flying control platform. Documented in Washington and Pennsylvania. I haven't seen or heard evidence of a C-130 around NYC when 11 and 175 hit the WTC, but all eyes were focused on the buildings so I couldn't discount that there could have been one flying close by. Or there could have been a stationary command/control post.

Seems to me that a RC attack scenario could be easily perpetrated. The military could have had a small number of insiders that knew the complete picture. Who knows if some/all are still alive? Others, like the Raytheon employees, could have been directly taken out as passengers.

We know the technology to RC jetliners has existed for many years....I don't think this would be a particularly difficult task for a small dedicated ideological group within the Pentagon to retrofit the planes; they'd certainly have the budget and assets to get it done.

One thing that I really would like to know, and it would go a looong way in supporting this hypothesis, is: were 11, 175, 93, and 77 involved with Vigilant Guardian? If they were, I'd say that the odds of those 4 planes being hijacked and part of VG would border on the astronomical. If they were part of the exercise, having alleged hijackers on board with the plan to simulate a hijacking, "taking over" the cockpit, and having the plane's controls overrode by RC would not strike me as an unreasonable component of the exercise. So why don't we know the answer to this question?

[janedoe]

29. What about a chopper?

What about a chopper instead of a C-130?

There was a mysterious chopper hovering over the south tower as it was hit... and as each of the two towers went down. (see videos at terrorize.dk) I recall there was a no-fly order during this time. Hmmm... clearly the chopper had "special" permission to be where it was, then.

[Kevin Fenton]

37. Why I don't like remote control

"Vigilant Guardian, the US military simulation underway on 9/11 has hijacked airplanes as a component of the drill."
I'm not so sure. There was definitely an exercise involving hijackings that day, but I'm not so sure if it was VG or something else (like Vigilant Warrior).

"So....why wouldn't they be testing the ability to remotely overtake aircraft that have been hijacked by terrorists?"
They might, but this is speculation without anything solid to back it up.

"What about all of the Raytheon employees that were on one of the flights? ..."
Again, this line of enquiry might lead somewhere, but as far as I can see it's just speculation at the moment and I don't find it particularly convincing. Would you have a link for the Raytheon employees? I thought they were only supposed to be on three planes at the start.

"Regarding the alleged terrorists, many posts have shown evidence that they were not particularly religious Muslims."
I'm sure they weren't. However, I don't see anything odd about non-religious Muslims attacking the US for political reasons.

"There's also evidence that some had connections to the US military Foreign Language Schools."
This is my point 3(3). It might be very relevant, it might not.

"What if they were, in fact, CIA/DEA assets? If so, it could very well be that they were role playing on 9/11...their "job" could have been to play designated "terrorists" for those flights."
They might be, then again, they might be double agents, triple agents, or just plain old successful hijackers. God knows.

"Odd that none would contact their families to say goodbye and tell them they were on a mission for Allah..."
It's not odd, this would give the game away.

"What about the C-130's? This could have been the flying control platform. Documented in Washington and Pennsylvania. I haven't seen or heard evidence of a C-130 around NYC when 11 and 175 hit the WTC, but all eyes were focused on the buildings so I couldn't discount that there could have been one flying close by. Or there could have been a stationary command/control post."
AFAIK most planes that are remote controlled are remote controlled from a stationary command/control post (for example the Predator). Also, the C-130 was only with two hijacked planes right at the end. If it was working the planes then, what was working them before? Even if the remote controllers are right (and I really doubt it), then I don't think the C-130 has anything to do with it.

"Seems to me that a RC attack scenario could be easily perpetrated."
It depends how you define "easily". You need years of development and several test flights of 757s and 767s, I don't know if I'd call that easy.

"The military could have had a small number of insiders that knew the complete picture. Who knows if some/all are still alive? Others, like the Raytheon employees, could have been directly taken out as passengers."
Again, the most important word there is "could". This is my problem with the remote control scenario. There isn't really any direct evidence that it is correct.

[Old and In the Way]

44. Well, Kevin, my points are, of course, silly.

Because nothing remotely close to this was discussed in the 9/11 hearings. So we'll have to stick with the OCT.

One thing you didn't comment on was my question about the 4 planes being involved in VG. If they were, in fact, part of the exercise...would your thinking change about the RC scenario? It would be a fantastic coincidence if the hijackers happened to choose flights that were all involved in VG.

My point about them being non-religious is quite important, I think. If one doesn't believe you'll go to heaven and have 72 virgins awaiting you, what motivates a secular man (or 19 secular men) to kill themselves? Politics? Maybe one or 2, but 19? Maybe they were members of a cult, like Heaven's Gate....

Something else just slipped in from my long term memory banks. Do you recall that Egyptian pilot who decided he'd kill himself and the paasengers on his flight? That wasn't long before 9/11. IIRC, it was quite a surprise...no one thought he was particularly religious, either. Hmmmm, I'll have to go back and read up on that.

[Andre II]

46. True and

would you believe that UBL asks somebody who prefered lapdances than going to the Mosquee to be the chief of the operation?
Would you believe that this non-fundamentalist woould write the famous hijacker letter?
And why does the FBI not care about who the hijackers really were instead of leaving the investigative job to Hopsicker?

[Kevin Fenton]

51. I still don't like remote control

"One thing you didn't comment on was my question about the 4 planes being involved in VG. If they were, in fact, part of the exercise...would your thinking change about the RC scenario?"
It might do. I can't really say right now.

"It would be a fantastic coincidence if the hijackers happened to choose flights that were all involved in VG."
It would.

"My point about them being non-religious is quite important, I think. If one doesn't believe you'll go to heaven and have 72 virgins awaiting you, what motivates a secular man (or 19 secular men) to kill themselves? Politics? Maybe one or 2, but 19?"
They weren't secular. They were religious, but not so fanatic that it stopped them from drinking, snorting coke, going to lapdance clubs (lots of people go to church, but drink, etc. as well). Remember the crusaders? Many of them led terrible lives at home, but were absolved of their sins for going and fighting the heretics for a few weeks. It's the same thing. Many non-devout people have fought and died for causes - I don't see anything particularly strange in that. Yes, I think they did it for politics informed by religion.

I remember the Egyptian pilot, but I don't really know anything about him.

I just don't see anything in the remote control argument that's solid, that I can catch a hold of.

[Andre II]

47. Why

would you need "need years of development and several test flights of 757s and 767s"?

[Kevin Fenton]

54. Because

you can't just knock it together a couple of days before the attack. There is no known RC system for 757s and 767s. Surely you're not suggesting it could have been done without a testing programme?

[Andre II]

62. Already

in 1984 it worked already on a Boeing 720 so I think it's rather probable that it worked on 767 and 757 in 2001. The fact that no testing is officially known doesn't change anything. I'm not sure if people tested remote control on these Boeings in view of 911 they wanted it printed all over the world.
Btw on Sep 11 it was in the news that Raytheon had successfully tested the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System.

[Kevin Fenton]

63. It's definitely not a shoo-in

"Already in 1984 it worked already on a Boeing 720 so I think it's rather probable that it worked on 767 and 757 in 2001."
I don't they're completely different aircraft with completely different systems - designed about 20 years apart.

"The fact that no testing is officially known doesn't change anything."
It does. If testing were publicly known, then we would know for sure the sort of remote control you're suggesting was actually possible. However, we don't.

"I'm not sure if people tested remote control on these Boeings in view of 911 they wanted it printed all over the world."
You're suggesting that most/many/some remote control programmes were public knowledge (e.g. Global Hawk and the Predator), but that the 757 and 767 programme wasn't. Given that the others were public knowledge, why keep the 757/767 programme secret from the start?

"Btw on Sep 11 it was in the news that Raytheon had successfully tested the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System."
Link please.

[Andre II]

64. Remote control

If you take simply as an assuption that 911 is an inside job then it makes perfect sense that the people in charge tested the 757 and 767 programmes not in front of the world press.

Link is Aerospace Daily, 9/11/01
Quote found here:
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1370.20

Btw there is also a Boeing 727 tested in August 2001
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remo

[Kevin Fenton]

65. I don't assume that

I require evidence. Further, I don't think it's acceptable for one set of evidence (for example that the WTC was demolished) to influence another set of evidence (for example that United 93 was a hologram).

The link to Aviation Now at team8 doesn't work.
It appears that JPALS wouldn't work on a 757 or 767:
"Existing civil and military systems do not satisfy JPALS requirements because they have a number of shortcomings and they limit joint operations. The Instrument Landing System (ILS) has complex siting requirements because of topography limitations, suffers from frequency congestion because of a finite number of available frequencies, and has frequency modulation interference problems in some areas. ILS is not deployable and is to be phased out by 2010 according to the Federal Radionavigation Plan. Precision Approach Radar (PAR) is the NATO standard, but it is airlift and manpower intensive. PAR is being phased out by the Air Force and has no civil interoperability. The Mobile Microwave Landing System (MMLS) provides no civil or allied interoperability. The Marine Remote Area Approach and Landing System and Instrument Carrier Landing System are not interoperable with Air Force, Army, civil users, or allies. The multiplicity of systems in itself hinders inter-Service, civil, and allied operations."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/jpals.htm

Again, a Boeing 727 is a completely different aircraft and your link didn't work for me.

[Andre II]

66. Assumption

I know you don't assume that.
But if you state that the absence of any reporting that remote control has been tested on 767 and 757 prior to 911 proves that it was technically impossible then I can only say that this absolute statement is hardly correct. In case 911 was an inside job then surely the people in charge will have tested remote control without the whole world press next to them.

Who did ever claim that UA 93 was a hologram???
Sorry, what are you talking about??

I hope the team8plus link works now. The complete article has been posted there (I think it's the third or fourth posting of the thread).

[Kevin Fenton]

67. What I claim and what I don't

"But if you state that the absence of any reporting that remote control has been tested on 767 and 757 prior to 911 proves that it was technically impossible then I can only say that this absolute statement is hardly correct."
I do not claim it was technically impossible. However, I require evidence that remote control was used on the four planes on 9/11, otherwise I won't beleive it. Failing that, I would like to see evidence that the planes in question (not other, completely different planes) could be flown by remote control. Nobody has yet provided either type of evidence.

Many people claim that the various planes were holograms. I was not implying that you, specifically, thought any plane was a hologram. However, if you think that United 93 was real, what are you suggesting happened to it?

[Andre II]

68. Ok we agree on that

Sure. The technical possibility of remote control on 767 or 757 has to be questioned as there is no proof that it was possible. Certainly I agree. On the other hand remote control can't be ruled out.

Small side question:
Based on what is your assurance that eg the planes hitting the towers weren't let's say 737?


I don't know anybody who claimed 77 or 93 was a hologram.

I don't know for sure what happened to the plane that was seen in Shanksville. In fact the crash was only witnessed by a single person. Too many reasons speak against the possibility that the crash can have been the result of a crash.
This is what I can say for sure. Not more. Not less.

[Kevin Fenton]

69. It's not a question of ruling out

It's a question of saying which hypothesis is more likely: (1) the OCT, (2) remote control or (3) good pilots. I wouldn't rule (1) or (2) out, but I can't see they're likely.

The videos (especially of United 175) show the planes hitting the towers were 767s. The impact damage photos are also consistent with 767s.

Hologram believer:
http://www.gallerize.com/Gallerize.News.htm

"Too many reasons speak against the possibility that the crash can have been the result of a crash."
Meaning?

[Andre II]

70. Read the artilce

if posted about the crash site.

[petgoat]

45. RC debunkers fail to consider that the RC task becomes far

easier if you place a navigational beacon at the target bullseye.

[Kevin Fenton]

55. What do you think is the best explanation at the moment?

Remote control or the planes having real pilots?

[petgoat]

58. What about both? Real hijackers whose hijacking was

hijacked by remote control.

I'm agnostic, trying to keep an open mind, trying to consider every
possibility without jumping to conclusions about what's impossible.

I don't consider the prospect of genuine suicide hijackers impossible,
and I haven't studied the remote control issue enough to have an
opinion. I'd have to leave it to professional pilots to opine on
who might have flown flight 77's famous 270 degree turn.

[Kevin Fenton]

59. OK,

it could theoretically be both, but this is not what I regard as the leading hypothesis at the moment.

I don't think the famous 270 degree turn is the real problem - the tree-top level approach is. It was going at 350 mph near the ground, so one mistake and the hijackers and passengers would have been toast. How fast do planes usually go before landing? 100 mph?

[kerry_s]

35. He just simply forgot...

>>However, his luggage did not contain anything specifically related to the “planes operation”, but lots of things, such as a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft and a slide-rule flight calculator, related to his flying planes.

Flight computer hasn't got anything to planes operation??? So what he should left in this bag? Postcard from Osama?

>>Why was Atta deliberately planting evidence against himself and why did this evidence only relate to his flying, not the planes operation itself? When a person plants evidence, the reason is to mislead. Therefore, it appears that Atta is trying to mislead us as to his ability to fly a 767.

Do you really believe that ATTA left all this stuff? The main pilot left all his computers (yes, HE SIMPLY FORGOT, ha ha ha) and he was STILL capable to operate a boeing??? Professional hijacker left flight computers?... Of course he did it, he was "fanatical muslim". Muslims behave irrational.

There should be (4) preposition:

(4) Good pilots II
Outline:
The planes were flown by very good pilots, but NOT so called al-qaeda-islamic-radicals, (for example: some guys from military intelligence, secret service, i dont say fbi/cia, it could be isi, mossad, gru, chinesse, we simply don;t know.
I only know, suppose rather, that all "arabic" silly stuff WAS PLANTED. Real terrorists didn't left koran and computers and pepper gas on airport. It was planted to made us believe "bad muslims did it".

What about isreali-art-circle?

What about Able Danger?

Maybe Able Danger was really Doubleganger? :)

There was two Attas, two Ziad Jarrah...

Why Islamic terrorists made their false identities from... islamic terrorists / pilots-wanna-be-rich guys??? Why they didn't call themseles like "Patt Robertson" or "Dereg Zung" but khalid mahmud atta ?

[kerry_s]

36. He just simply forgot...

>>However, his luggage did not contain anything specifically related to the “planes operation”, but lots of things, such as a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft and a slide-rule flight calculator, related to his flying planes.

Flight computer hasn't got anything to planes operation??? So what he should left in this bag? Postcard from Osama?

>>Why was Atta deliberately planting evidence against himself and why did this evidence only relate to his flying, not the planes operation itself? When a person plants evidence, the reason is to mislead. Therefore, it appears that Atta is trying to mislead us as to his ability to fly a 767.

Do you really believe that ATTA left all this stuff? The main pilot left all his computers (yes, HE SIMPLY FORGOT, ha ha ha) and he was STILL capable to operate a boeing??? Professional hijacker left flight computers?... Of course he did it, he was "fanatical muslim". Muslims behave irrational.

There should be (4) preposition:

(4) Good pilots II
Outline:
The planes were flown by very good pilots, but NOT so called al-qaeda-islamic-radicals, (for example: some guys from military intelligence, secret service, i dont say fbi/cia, it could be isi, mossad, gru, chinesse, we simply don;t know.
I only know, suppose rather, that all "arabic" silly stuff WAS PLANTED. Real terrorists didn't left koran and computers and pepper gas on airport. It was planted to made us believe "bad muslims did it".

What about isreali-art-circle?

What about Able Danger?

Maybe Able Danger was really Doubleganger? :)

There was two Attas, two Ziad Jarrah...

Why Islamic terrorists made their false identities from... islamic terrorists / pilots-wanna-be-rich guys??? Why they didn't call themseles like "Patt Robertson" or "Dereg Zung" but khalid mahmud atta ?

[Kevin Fenton]

40. Flight computer, etc.

"Flight computer hasn't got anything to planes operation???"
There were no specific details of the operation stored on the computer.

"The main pilot left all his computers (yes, HE SIMPLY FORGOT, ha ha ha) and he was STILL capable to operate a boeing???"
(1) I doubt he was the main pilot.
(2) He doesn't need a computer to fly the plane.

"The planes were flown by very good pilots, but NOT so called al-qaeda-islamic-radicals, (for example: some guys from military intelligence, secret service, i dont say fbi/cia, it could be isi, mossad, gru, chinesse, we simply don;t know."
Actually, I think the pilots were from the Pakistani Air Force.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kevin Fenton]

52. Checked baggage

The stuff was in his checked baggage and he wouldn't have had access to it on the plane anyway. Some reports say his connecting flight was delayed, which would normally cause his luggage not to make the flight.

Maybe he was under surveillance, but I doubt it was "routine".

btw, The website you linked to looks a bit like a holocaust denial site.

[kerry_s]

56. Bags... Its strange to me anyway

>The stuff was in his checked baggage and he wouldn't have had access to it on the plane anyway.

So its strange he got a testament in the bags, if he hadn't had access to it, it would have burned with him in collision!! it doesnt make sense to me, why he took flight computer for checking, take a moment...
how we know that it was "checked baggage"??? you just said that "his connecting flight was delayed, which would normally cause his luggage not to make the flight." So if the bags were delayed how Atta gave them for checking?



>Maybe he was under surveillance, but I doubt it was "routine".

I agree.

>btw, The website you linked to looks a bit like a holocaust denial site.

The article has not got anything about holocaust, i was just googling searching for details. And it was mirrored from WorldNetDaily,
this site also is not mainstream, but the article hasnt got anything in common to conspiracy theories.

The question is: important stuff is missing but the operation goes on.
Answers:
1. That stuff wasn't important.
2. That stuff wasn't from Atta, it was planted by some indywiduals, maybe "real pilots" (Paks agent, others) who want ua believe that Atta was a pilot, but he wasn't.

[Kevin Fenton]

57. If you ask me...

Atta deliberately planted it against himself to make it look like he was the pilot and leader, which I doubt he was (hasn't KSM admitted to lying about this? he's admitted to lying about something). He knew the connection was tight and that there was a good chance his bags (checked in Portland through to his final destination) wouldn't make the connecting flight - this has happened to me, once I made a really tight connection in Frankfurt, but my bag arrived at my final destination on the next flight.

As far as concerns the link, I don't object to it personally. I just noticed there was a quote by the "historian" David Irving and had a very brief look around the site - there seems to be a lot of stuff about him there. As you point you, the article you linked to in no way denies the holocaust, but the policy on DU is very strict (a bit too strict IMHO) and generally posts with links like that get deleted. This is just for your future reference, I'm not offended or mad or anything.

[Andre II]

39. What is your explanation

for the two Attas on Sep 7 and 8 (most likely also 9)?
What is your explanation for two Al Shehhis on Sep 9.
Not to forget the two Jarrahs as clearly presented in the photos we do have on him?

And if you agree that there is evidence enough to back up the claim of the two Attas then how do you explain why al Qaeda would use TWO Attas.

[TomClash]

49. A few points on an interesting read

Maxwell, Lackland, Brooks - these are USAF bases - not Saudi or Paki. That should make you a little more curious about their allegiances.

"The real pilots were connected to organisations and individuals who facilitated their participation in the “planes operation”, but who did not wish to be associated with it publicly. If we knew who the real pilots were, that would immediately lead us to these organisations and individuals. The organisations I’m thinking of are the ISI and the Pakistani Air Force. The individuals are Al Qaeda’s main moneymen back in Saudi."

Do you think there is only one layer here? That's a strange way to conduct a covert operation of this magnitude. If there is more than one layer, where does that lead you?

Since you don't know their identities how do you know the "good pilots" were "Islamic radicals?"

If you look at your "Good Pilots" analysis carefully I think you may conclude you have less evidence for your theory than you think. It's not your fault because there are few facts available, but I see a lot of deduction and speculation from very few facts.

[Kevin Fenton]

53. Various

"Maxwell, Lackland, Brooks - these are USAF bases - not Saudi or Paki. That should make you a little more curious about their allegiances."
I am curious, but I don't know anything more yet.

"The real pilots were connected to organisations and individuals who facilitated their participation in the “planes operation”,"
"Do you think there is only one layer here? That's a strange way to conduct a covert operation of this magnitude. If there is more than one layer, where does that lead you?"
Yes, I think there is only one layer. The US investigation can't go beyond one layer - what would they do? Invade a country armed with nuclear weapons? Besides, they don't need to go beyond that one layer. Besides, it's a good layer, how the hell could they identify the real pilots when they were in pieces? And even if they did, so what? I'm sure they all resigned their commissions before going on the operation.

Since you don't know their identities how do you know the "good pilots" were "Islamic radicals?"
I don't know it. It is merely the most convincing argument to me at the moment.

"If you look at your "Good Pilots" analysis carefully I think you may conclude you have less evidence for your theory than you think. It's not your fault because there are few facts available, but I see a lot of deduction and speculation from very few facts."
Yes, it is a lot of deduction and speculation from the very few facts we have and I know that I need a lot more to beef the argument up and make it convincing. All I can say is that I'm looking for more facts at the moment. However, even in the present form, I think it's better than remote control and there is a better chance of developing it than remote control.

[MrSammo1]

60. I like......

The Neocon Flying Circus much better!

[stickdog]

71. The Flight Control Computer in every 757 & 767.

Put in the waypoints, and the autopilot does the rest.

What could be simpler?

[AZCat]

73. The pilots don't even do take-offs and landings anymore

I used to work with a lot of regional jet pilots and we had discussed this a number of times. The level of automation for the air carriers was higher than for the rj pilots, but technologies were slowly being transported to that area also that would allow similar automation. They (the pilots) were leery of such a "hands-off" kind of cockpit management, because the tendency (according to them) is to slip into a sort of "passenger mode" where vigilance is lax. They were concerned about accidents like the one in Cali, Columbia, becoming more common.

Of course now that they are training a petri dish of rat brain cells to fly, pilots are in danger of becoming an anachronism!

[stickdog]

74. All they needed pilots for on 9/11 was the take-offs ...

if that, as you intimate ...

[AZCat]

81. Yes - it wouldn't be that hard to set up "drones"

Remote control would require some work, but just setting up the Flight Director to fly a preset path would require little or no work (IMHO).

Would they do that? :shrug:

[Kevin Fenton]

76. If it was that easy,

then I guess Atta, Al Shehhi, Jarrah and Hani could have flown the planes and we're wasting our time here.

But why would the autopilot ascend and then descend?
(9:35 a.m.): Silent Flight 93 Climbs and Drops; NORAD Still Not Notified
When Flight 93 is over Youngstown, Ohio, Stacey Taylor and other Cleveland flight controllers see it rapidly climb 6,000 feet above its assigned altitude of 35,000 feet and then rapidly descend. The plane drops so quickly toward Cleveland that the flight controllers worry they might be the target. Other accounts say the climb occurs around 9:35 a.m. Controllers continue to try to contact the plane but still get no response.
Maybe it was malfunctioning.

[stickdog]

79. Trying to get away from the fighter jet on its ass?

Remember, one of the passengers (one that we seldom hear anything about for ome reason) was an experienced pilot ...

[Kevin Fenton]

80. What fighters at 9:35?

There weren't any fighters there at that time - only a few minutes after it was hijacked. And this was 23 minutes before the passenger revolt started.

Besides:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/flight77-aa-pentagon/flight-77-maneuverability-like-military-plane.txt
How can the autopilot fly a plane in a manner that's unsafe?

[stickdog]

115. What specifically happened at 9:35 that you think couldn't be

explained by waypoints entered into a flight control computer.

How can the autopilot fly a plane in a manner that's unsafe?

Computers can be programmed to do whatever you tell them to do. To limit an autopilot to only "safe" possibilities would take a hefty chuck of complicated coding. On the other hand, all you'd have to do to allow the autopilot to do anything a manual pilot could do is to bypass or disable this putative chuck of code -- that is, if it even exists.

[rman]

72. No evidence of Remote control - the evidence has been destroyed

in the crashes and the subsequent collapse of the buildings.
And whatever evidence remained has not been thoroughly investigated.

There may be no evidence of remote control, but neither is there evidence that the planes were piloted.

Also the idea of using remote control to fake such an incident is not new at all:

"Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday".
This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

[Kevin Fenton]

77. If I understand you correctly...

you mean
(1) There is evidence of the planes being piloted, but you aren't convinced by it.
(2) There's no evidence of remote control, but you think it fits the pattern (or however you want to put it).

There is evidence the planes were piloted, for example on the CVR from United 93 the pilots were talking about flying the plane, but it's hardly cast iron.

[rman]

91. Indeed, evidence for the planes being piloted is hardly cast in iron.

How hard would it be to fake the CVR?

And yes, RC does imo fit the pattern.

[Kevin Fenton]

93. Well

The evidence for the planes being piloted is not cast in iron, but I would say it is greater than the evidence for the planes not being piloted.

It shouldn't be too difficult to fake a CVR, but why only fake one and why play it to just a handful of people and leave the last couple of minutes out? There's also the question of the signals received by ATC from American 11 and United 93, the fact that some of the passengers and air hostesses called in to say there were hijackers in the cabin and the way the planes were being flown.

If the planes are being flown by RC, how come United 93 kept going up and down at the start?

[rman]

94. Phone calls to can be faked

Arguably easier then a CVR. The calls have been under scrutiny in this forum and i'm not convinced they're genuine.

RC doesn't make it impossible for a plane to go up and down. It can be steered like that if for no other reason then to make it look like it's being piloted by a no so very experienced pilot.

[jackieMN]

75. 9-11 Pentagon Video

Have you seen this: http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php. Also: Visit the inplanesite website. As for what may have happened to some/all of the planes? Maybe they were used to excort the Bin Ladens out of the country. They necessarily wouldn't have to come back to the States, would they? :shrug:

[Kevin Fenton]

78. I watched the video

It starts by saying that the plane hit the Pentagon at 8:38 and pretty much goes even further downhill from there.

I looked at the inplanesite website and that was just as bad.
The hole in the Pentagon is 90 foot:
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html
911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/Pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

[FogerRox]

83. If one were to consider the KISS theory

using Saudi Air Force pilots to fly the attacks makes the plot "fly"
so much easier.

[Kevin Fenton]

84. What's the KISS theory?

Why Saudi? I would have said Pakistani myself, because:
(1) There was one (or perhaps more) PAF pilot in the Hamburg cell;
(2) The Air Chief Marshall of the PAF Mushaf Ali Mir actually knew Osama;
(3) (Some of) the money for the operation actually came through Pakistani ISI;
(4) Pakistan's military was in bed with Osama anyway;
(5) Pakistan actually gained more than any other country from 9/11.

[AZCat]

85. Keep It Short and Simple.

Although there are other variants.

[Andre II]

86. (5)

And i would have thought this was the US and maybe Israel.
Btw if you say "Pakistan gained" are you talking of Musharaf or the ISI?

[Kevin Fenton]

88. Pakistan

Were the US and Israel under sanctions that crippled their economies and were giving their sworn enemies a decisive advantage over them?

Here's a link to the act that lifted the sanctions on Pakistan:
http://www.mac.doc.gov/sanctions/waiver-publaw.107-57.htm
Look at the date it became law (at the bottom) - fast work, huh?

And here's an article about the Pakistanis getting what they really wanted:
http://www.slate.com/id/2115965/
Can you imagine the PAF pilots who were members of the Hamburg cell flying nuclear-armed F-16s?

[seatnineb]

89. You are talking out of your ass and you know it.

If a war between the 2 should unfold...Pakistan knows it does not have a prayer in hell of beating India.....with or without F-16's.


And as for benefiting from 9/11......

How does an influx of 15000 poor Afghan refugees that a poor country like Pakistan has to absorb as a result of the U.S strikes in retaliation for 9/11..........benefit Pakistan?
(All this... on top of the Afgan refugee problem in Pakistan because of the war with Soviets in 70's and 80's...and then the war between the Taliban and Northern alliance in the 90's)

Since September 11, large-scale population movements inside Afghanistan have been reported, particularly from the cities of Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has reported 15,000 new arrivals in Pakistan since September 11, and up to 20,000 Afghans waiting on the Afghan side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

http://www.us-mission.ch/press2001/0927AFGHANISTAN.html

And here are Pakistani troops having to turn back Afghan refugees.

[Kevin Fenton]

90. Pakistan benefited most

"If a war between the 2 should unfold...Pakistan knows it does not have a prayer in hell of beating India.....with or without F-16's."
Wouldn't that mean Pakistan needs to deter India? And wouldn't aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs provide such a deterent? Had the sanctions continued, Pakistan's military would have lost their deterent effect.

15,000 refugees might be a problem for, say, Liechtenstein or St. Kitts and St. Nevis, but given that Pakistan is the 6th largest country in the world with a population over 160,000,000, I doubt they noticed it much.

[seatnineb]

98. Tell that to these Afghan refugees living in Pakistan

You predictably forgot to mention that:

Pakistan was a poor country, with per capita gross national income of $600 per year.Pakistan ranked 68th out of 103 third world countries surveyed in the 2005 UN Poverty Index, which measures longevity, living standards, education, and health.

http://www.pakistan-facts.com

Tell these people how they could have fucking possibly benefited from 9/11...........





And by the way.......

You also forgot to mention that India is also buying F-16's from the same company that is selling F-16's to Pakistan:

The Bush administration’s decision to sell F-16s to India and Pakistan comes as a welcome news to the struggling Bethesda-based manufacturer of the fighter jets

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050328/world.htm#1

And who stands to gain financially from such deals?.......Lockheed Martin and the U.S economy........or poor Pakistani families looking after poor Afghan refugees.....

You know the fucking answer aswell as I do.

[Kevin Fenton]

100. There's no welfare in Pakistan

The refugees don't cost the government anything.

If it was a false-flag operation, tell me how the poor people in the US benefited.

The sanctions on India would have been lifted anyway - it was under less sanctions, because it was a democracy. Given the current situation between Pakistan and North Korea, how else could Pakistan acquire delivery systems for nuclear warheads?

[seatnineb]

101. Which is exactly the reason why these refugees suffer.....

But hey .......since when did Al-CIA-DA give a fuck about the plight of poor Afghan refugees or poor people of 3rd world countries in general?

Al-Quida imply that they fight for the common (Sunni Muslim)man.

But from Iraq to Afghanistan.......

It seems like the common man,woman and child gets the blunt end of Al-Quida's attacks.(directly or indirectly)

And if Atif Bin Mansour was a Pakistani Muslim radical suicide pilot working for Al-Quida,framing Arabs,just so Pakistan could get sanctions removed so they can obtain nuclear warheards so that they could act as a deterent against a possible Indian attack against Pakistan......then there would still have to have been American colusion to have wiped these Pakistani names off the flight manifests of the planes that crashed on 9/11....

Because Bin Mansour cannot fly 4 planes at the same time.

If anything....9/11 was designed to destabilize Pakistan.....or at least put it under pressure to cooperate in the "war on Terror"....which seems to suit U.S interests.....dont you think?

Also.....

Was it not cleaners,waiters,cabdrivers sales clerks ect ect that took the brunt of post 9/11 layoffs in New York.....

So much for Al-Quida's loftly claim about putting America on it's knees because of 9/11!

[Kevin Fenton]

106. Al Qaeda is winning

how difficult is it to beat Rummy?

Civilians always suffer most, Osama never said it was going to be easy.

"then there would still have to have been American colusion to have wiped these Pakistani names off the flight manifests of the planes that crashed on 9/11...."
Not if they were using stolen identities.

"Because Bin Mansour cannot fly 4 planes at the same time."
He wasn't flying any of them. How many pilots do you think the PAF has?

[seatnineb]

108. Sure.......Al-CIA-DA is winning!

And it is pretty fucking difficult to beat Rummy.

Just ask the Afghans and the Iraqis.




Oh yeah....we long ago lost count of the amount of deaths that have been inflicted on the civillian populations of both Iraq and Aghanistan ,by Al-CIA-DA and the U.S and British militaries.....

And by the way.... I take anything that Osama or the CIA say with a massive dose of salt.

Like when Osama denies having worked for the CIA....damn....I meant Al-CIA-DA.....and when the CIA say they had nothing to do with Osama.

And if a Pakistani ISI agent /PAF pilot used the false identity of this young man who goes by the name of Abdul Aziz Alomari.......



Then :

1)How did the Pakistanis get this same Abdul Aziz Alomari to say in his video will(that was allegedly shot before 9/11):



.....that it was Osama Bin Laden who trained him.

2)Surely it would have been in Saudi Arabia's interests to say that the above individual is in fact a Pakistani posing as a Saudi!

How did the Paks manage to keep the Saudis quiet?

[rman]

117. Al Qaeda is funded by (a part of) the global corporate-political elite

that also operates in the US.

I suppose you haven't yet looked very closely at the stories of Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh.

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[Andre II]

103. Most

You've stated that Pakistan benefited most yet you only came up with an explanation that they benefited. Can you please explain why they benefited more than Israel and espically than the US.
If you speak of Pakistan: Do you mean the government or the ISI?

[Kevin Fenton]

104. Pakistan

(1) I mean both the government and the ISI.

(2) I know there was a lot of speculation about Israel benefiting initially, but I don't really see any case for Israel benefiting in practice - they're going backwards, not forwards, i.e. giving up land (perhaps they've finally seen sense).

(3)(a) The current US government has obviously derived a huge domestic benefit from 9/11 - every piece of domestic legislation - from the Patriot Act to tax cuts has been justified by "raping the corpses of that day".
(b) I don't think that the US has derived a great foreign policy benefit from 9/11. The goodwill evaporated a long time ago and they are heading for humiliating defeats in both Afghanistan and Iraq - there's no way the crusade is going to continue to Iran or Saudi.
(c) However, I don't think (b) is a good argument - we should not compare what benefits actually accrued to whom, but what benefits could reasonably be expected to accrue to whom. Obviously, if it was a false flag operation, Rummy et al. did not expect to get beat so bad in Iraq, (it seems they hadn't even realised Saddam had a stay-behind network!), but expected to continue to Iran and then North Korea. When judging which country benefited most we should compare where a country was before 9/11 and where it would have expected to be after 9/11, if it was behind/a participant in the attacks. If 9/11 was a false flag operation, then it can only have boosted the US's standing as the world's sole "hyperpower". However, Pakistan was in (believed it was in) deep trouble before 9/11, because of the growing disparity with Indian armed forces (Pakistan was under more sanctions than India, is smaller and has, for example, a higher attrition rate in its air force). Following 9/11 it became a key member of the international community and US ally - can you imagine India invading it now? The existential threat has been removed.

[Andre II]

107. Musharaf

I might be wrong but I remember huge demonstration in Pakistan against Musharaf because he supported the war against the Taliban. Don't forget that all the schools supporting the Jihad (the war against Russia) are in Pakistan.

Is I think of the US I would also list beside
geostrategical progess. Just look how much they control (or thought to control) an area that was out of reach for them.
But also
Oil
Drugs
The Dollar crisis that was apparent before 911

[Kevin Fenton]

109. Demonstration

I'm sure there were lots of demonstrations against Musharraf, but I think that there were lots of causes, the primary one being that he shut the jihad in Kashmir down (actually, several assassinations attempts have been made against him).

Which specific area do you mean? There's nothing in Afghanistan, unless you like mountain climbing.

As for oil, the main problem is that there isn't enough of it, invading Iraq doesn't actually make any more oil (although oil companies are making some nice money now). Has Iraq left OPEC? (I really don't know).

Drugs? AFAIK the claim that the CIA (or whoever) smuggles drugs refers to the fact that they use drug smuggling into the US to fund operations they can't otherwise get money for.

What dollar crisis?

[Andre II]

110. There is nothing in Afghanistan

You have studied Paul Thompson's Timeline in detail I believe.
Then you certainly know the importance of Afghnistan for oil and gaz.
The pipeline project etct.
"As for oil, the main problem is that there isn't enough of it".
It wasn't known prior to 2001 that the Caspian Sea contained much less oil than expected.
Remember what Cheney had to say about the Caspian Sea?
Afghanistan is the heroin and opium producer. A lot of money to make, a lot of friends to buy.
The importance of drug money for criminal and secret activities is certainly well known to you.
The geopolitical importance. Together with Iraq: The US is in perfect position to control the near East sharing borders with Russia and China.
Dollar Crisis: Have a look how many countries were thinking or already decided to sell oil in Euro and not in Dollar andymore. Think what this would have meant for the Dollar. A strong inflation would have been inevitable as the Dollar is mainly based on its importance as a currency in which daily a lot of oil and other goods are sold.

We can discuss for long how much the US gained or hoped to gain but my question is why do you state that Pakistan gained most?

[Kevin Fenton]

111. Not enough oil

What pipeline in Afghanistan? There isn't one. The idea of building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan died when they started building one to Ceyhan.

"The US is in perfect position to control the near East sharing borders with Russia and China."
Afghanistan doesn't have a border with Russia, neither does Iraq and neither of them are in the near east.

How long has the US been in Afghanistan? Are you saying they're taxing the herion trade?

"Have a look how many countries were thinking or already decided to sell oil in Euro and not in Dollar andymore."
Name them and provide links.

"A strong inflation would have been inevitable as the Dollar is mainly based on its importance as a currency in which daily a lot of oil and other goods are sold."
Please explain why you think the transfer from dollars to Euros would be rapid and then explain why you think this would cause inflation in the US. Why do you think the dollar's main basis is not the underlying strength of the US economy, which is what most people would attribute it to?

[Andre II]

112. Geography

"What pipeline in Afghanistan? There isn't one. The idea of building an oil pipeline through Afghanistan died when they started building one to Ceyhan."
That's interesting and I thought they have struck a deal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
For the whole topic:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics

"Afghanistan doesn't have a border with Russia, neither does Iraq and neither of them are in the near east."
Thanks for clearing that up for me! Jesus, I'm not completely dumb. Have a look at the map of countries that host US military bases.


Countries like Kazakhstan do have borders with Russia, Kyrgysistan with China etc.

For further details (especially discussion with Kazakhstan) here:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=centralAsia

And btw in my mother tongue Afghanistan is considered near East. In UK I know people consider Pakistan as Asian.
Shall we agree on Eurasia??

How come you don't consider the US presence in this region that they always dreamt of (Grand Chessboard, PNAC etc etc) as something that could be taken as a gain for the US?

"How long has the US been in Afghanistan? Are you saying they're taxing the herion trade?"
Well, the influence of the US dates back quite long but you do know how important drugs are for secret servies.

"Name them and provide links."
Well, Iraq was one of them. North Korea was one of them. Saudi-Arabia was discussing it prior to 911 and Iran is discussing it today.
I'll come up with references.

"Please explain why you think the transfer from dollars to Euros would be rapid and then explain why you think this would cause inflation in the US. Why do you think the dollar's main basis is not the underlying strength of the US economy, which is what most people would attribute it to?"
Do you think the Dollar wouldn't face an inflation if suddently every day far less Dollars are demanded cause the oil business isn't done in US-Dollar anymore?
I'll come up with more details later.

[Kevin Fenton]

113. Oil? Gas?

Your pipeline link was from 2002, for gas, not oil and they still haven't built it. There's a long way to go yet.

The US is beginning to pull out of Central Asia:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/08/e9dbb7ad-49f4-44e5-87c5-1e0916f24517.html

"How come you don't consider the US presence in this region that they always dreamt of (Grand Chessboard, PNAC etc etc) as something that could be taken as a gain for the US?"
They didn't always dream of it. What is a bigger gain - national survival or a marginal increase in influence?

"Well, the influence of the US dates back quite long but you do know how important drugs are for secret servies."
Come off the fence. If you think the US is profiting from the herion trade say who, how much and provide links.

"Do you think the Dollar wouldn't face an inflation if suddently every day far less Dollars are demanded cause the oil business isn't done in US-Dollar anymore?"
I think there will be a slow shift from dollars to Euros, but I don't think this will cause inflation in the US. 9/11 won't have much effect on this and is more likely to speed the process up than slow it down.

[rman]

96. Keep It Simple Stupid

not a theory though, but rather an advice wrt engineering.

Keeping it simple in case of theories and speculation increases the risk of over-simplification.

The simplest theory is not always the best theory. Especially when it involves human behavior rather then physics exclusively.

9-11 does not involve physics _exclusively_, it also involves human behavior, possibly including conspiracy.

Physics is usually fairly simple - at least in principal, so theories about physics can be fairly simple. But human behavior takes things to a whole other level of complexity, and once people start conspiring, wel...

[rman]

92. "unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft"

Exactly that has in the past been proposed and considered at the highest levels in the US government.

--

Operation Northwoods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various false flag actions, including domestic terror attacks (such as involving the use of "hijacked" planes) on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba.

<snip>

In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project (Col. Edward Lansdale), the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outline plans) the author believed would garner public and international support for US military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans" —right-wing Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro and establish an anti-communist state —perhaps similar to the earlier Batista regime.

The suggestions included:

<snip>

- Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

<more>

[Kevin Fenton]

95. Situation before Northwoods

The situation before Operation Northwoods was proposed was very different to that before 9/11. If you read the Fists chapter in Body of Secrets by James Bamford, the author that popularised knowledge of Northwoods, you can see that there was a whole string of incidents that radicalised the US military and spurred them on to come up with such a shocking plan.

For example,
"Since the Kennedy administration had come into office the extreme, distrustful right wing within the military had grown significantly, not only in numbers, but also in decibels. In April 1961 Defense Secretary Robert McNamara finally lowered the boom on Major General Edwin A. Walker. Walker was charged with indoctrinating his troops with John Birch Soceity propaganda, officially admonished and releived of his command. As a result many conservatives accused the Kennedy administration of trying to muzzle anti-Communists.
"Walker resigned from the army in protest, but even as a civlian he continued to warn of the dangers of Communist infiltration. Among the themes he constantly pounded home was a distrust of civilian control of the military." (P. 79).

Bamford goes on like this for several pages describing how the military was crazy about losing the Soviet threat before they came up with Northwoods. In terms of the atmosphere beforehand, there's absolutely no parallel with 9/11.

[rman]

97. I don't think "atmosphere" is the essence of the argument

of implausibility of remote controlled planes. It's usually more about technical feasibility and "the government just doesn't do that kind of thing". Op Northwoods shows that they do in fact do that sort of thing - or at least can consider it seriously.

And then still. We've had the Iran-Contra hearings - and nothing much came of it. The extremists got nothing but a slap on the wrist.

Nobody even remembers that those hearings revealed amongst others, CIA involvement of drug smuggling. Everybody thinks the whole notion is so ludicrous that folks such as Gary Webb and Mike Rupert are considered to be just silly conspiracy theorists. As long as the public at large lets these things just slide by, "they" can get away with pretty much anything.

Not to mention the neocons, the secrecy of this government, numerous replacements in the upper levels of the military and intel agencies - even the courts. And you're arguing these right wingers are not extreme?
I'd say the extremists are back (back in power that is, they never went away) - with a vengeance.

[Kevin Fenton]

99. I think the "atmosphere" is really important

I think the government (or people in it or the military) only does that sort of thing when it thinks it doesn't have any other option. If it is a false flag operation, then what's the motive? Is it just for power and money and not in response to a direct threat?

I'd agree that the extremists are back in power, but I don't think they occupy all the positions there - George Tenet wasn't even a Republican.

[rman]

102. Motive for false-flag op. - same as usual;

to create an excuse (reason that's plausible to the public) to start a war.

The extremists may not occupy all the positions, but neither did they back then and they don't have to occupy all the positions. Many of the same people involved in Iran-Contra etc, are again (or still) in the game now. Maybe you should have a look at what Sibel and Indira have to say about this.

Are you seriously arguing they are less powerful now then they were before? Has any US government ever gone so far (or further) with secrecy, reduction of civil rights, confiscation of wealth (to name a few of the more obvious issues) then this one? I'd say they are more powerful now then they ever were, we're witnessing the culmination of decades of effort they have put into obtaining control. I have no admiration for these people, but they sure are dedicated and persistent - and extremely wealthy.

Also, there are many non-republicans who are at least not opposing and in many cases supporting the Bush admin. A person's political affiliation is virtually irrelevant.


on edit: I think the more basic question besides "Who Flew the Planes?" is "Was it a false-flag operation?". You seem to be dismissing up front the possibility that it was false-flag.

[Kevin Fenton]

105. The badness of bipartisanship

"The extremists may not occupy all the positions, but neither did they back then and they don't have to occupy all the positions. Many of the same people involved in Iran-Contra etc, are again (or still) in the game now."
Agree completely.

"Are you seriously arguing they are less powerful now then they were before?"
Maybe, maybe not. If they are less powerful, it's only a result of the way they handled the post-9/11 situation.

"Has any US government ever gone so far (or further) with secrecy, reduction of civil rights, confiscation of wealth (to name a few of the more obvious issues) then this one?"
The current US administration is pretty bad on all the points you mention, but you could argue whether it is the worst ever.

"I'd say they are more powerful now then they ever were, we're witnessing the culmination of decades of effort they have put into obtaining control. I have no admiration for these people, but they sure are dedicated and persistent - and extremely wealthy."
Agree completely.

"I think the more basic question besides "Who Flew the Planes?" is "Was it a false-flag operation?". You seem to be dismissing up front the possibility that it was false-flag."
The basic question is made up of sub-questions, one of which is "Who flew the planes?" (another might be, "Were the 3 WTC buildings demolished?") By answering the sub-questions, we establish a base for answering the main question and then going on to say what really happened. I don't dismiss the false-flag idea (still less up front), but I don't think the evidence goes there.

[Silverhair]

120. Yes, Woodrow Wilson curtailed rights more extremely.

During WWI legislation was passed that made criticism of the gov't illegal. He had the AG for an organization of citizens that spied on other citizens looking for unpatriotic behavior. Over a hundred thousand joined.

[rman]

121. So we're supposed to think

that extremist RW elements in govt and various govt agencies, had more influence on policy making in the past, then they have now that they occupy the highest ranks of government?

How does any curtailing of rights during WW1 proove that they could/would not consider fals-flag ops now? It should be obvious that this movement of extremist RW movers and shakers has only gained power since.

[Rocknrule]

114. Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton flew them

thats what Fox News told me :sarcasm:

[Lithos]

116. LOL

Thanks, I needed that.

[savemefromdumbya]

118. no hijackers

[Silverhair]

119. Makes sense.

This is the only one of the original posts on this forum that I have believed. However, I have not read them all - only a few. Sadly, many of the replys go off into coocooland. I would suspect that the FBI has probably figured out the same things as you have, but desires not to talk about it - for obvious reasons.