IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was UA175 Controlled By Remote?

Freedomlover911
post Apr 14 2009, 03:12 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Call me befuddled...I posted this only an hour ago and it was deleted (not deleted, it was moved to "Alternative" after all). I can't think of anything more pertinent to this "Flight 175" subject line than the video I created and posted to my Youtube channel. Whether the admins of this site agree with me or not, I have shown evidence culled from actual video that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 175 was a remote controlled plane. My background is in guidance systems and the evidence shown is in line with the technology I was intimately familiar with during my stint in the Navy.

The video is called "Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11" and is posted on my site:
www.youtube.com/freedomlover911
Be sure to watch the video on its own page to see comments I've added in reply to many FAQs.

Whether you agree with me or not, I would appreciate comments and analysis of my findings on this message board.
Freedomlover911

Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11 (original)

(from earlier)
QUOTE (dMole @ Apr 12 2009, 07:06 PM) *
"Proof" and "confirmed" are words that should be used carefully on this forum, due to the Forum Rules and P4T Organization policy about speculation. For example a thread title like "Proof That 175 Was Controlled By Remote, Now, why was my last post deleted???" in one of the research forums.


I see your point dMole. I had no idea there was a rule about presenting what one may consider proof by actually calling it "proof". Were I some rookie with no background in the subject matter I should be slapped down for claiming to know something which I do not. Although I have had contact with others having the same background and even one person who claimed to have actually been involved in designing early NIR guidance systems all back me up in my findings, I still feel like a man on an island trying to explain this thing. Because of my background, I do not take the word "proof" lightly. Had I no experience at all in guidance/targeting systems, this would indeed have to be described by myself as "speculation" or "theory".

Now I understand why this keeps getting moved to "alternative" LOL. This is quite likely an allegory to how Columbus must have felt when he tried to explain to folks that the earth was round. Even Copernicus was excommunicated for describing his discovery that the Earth wasn't the center of our solar system. Not that I'm on any level comparable to these two famous historical figures...I just happened to have certain life experiences that put me in a place of understanding and knowledge of certain events and technology. I'm just lucky is all...and that's on the level
Peace
FL911

PS: I really suck at posting stuff on this new forum! I guess I need more practice smile.gif

This post has been edited by Freedomlover911: Apr 14 2009, 04:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Apr 14 2009, 03:30 PM
Post #2





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....sult_type=posts

< shrugs >
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Apr 14 2009, 03:49 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



QUOTE (JFK @ Apr 12 2009, 05:30 PM) *


Cool trick JFK! It's been a long time no see!
Peace
FL911
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Apr 14 2009, 04:17 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Merged with existing thread- now post #24
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769974

see also Lobby post #3
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769991

Notice and link were at post #33 in 2nd UA175 thread (and this is now the 3rd UA175 thread about this today):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769980

Title edited from "Proof That 175 Was Controlled By Remote, Now, why was my last post deleted???"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Apr 14 2009, 04:32 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Nice objective title rewrite. LOL

Thanks dMole

FL911
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kraig
post Apr 22 2009, 02:02 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 5-May 08
Member No.: 3,281



I have a question for you since your background is in guidance systems. I know there has been technology for quite some time to fly a plane remotely, when some work has been done to make it possible. However, do you think it would be possible for a highly skilled and highly trained special forces type team to take over a flight mid-air and install some kind of remote control or guidance system on the fly?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 22 2009, 05:50 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,985
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Kraig @ Apr 22 2009, 11:02 AM) *
I have a question for you since your background is in guidance systems. I know there has been technology for quite some time to fly a plane remotely, when some work has been done to make it possible. However, do you think it would be possible for a highly skilled and highly trained special forces type team to take over a flight mid-air and install some kind of remote control or guidance system on the fly?


qrs11

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10684315

I think this would have to be installed ahead of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 13 2013, 02:11 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



'According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
'

~ http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/20456

'Life Sized REMOTE CONTROL Hummer - Amazing!'
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaiIcI1xaLU

'Radio controlled cars - Top Gear - BBC'
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35sUu0u8bk

Video camera footage from a remotely-controlled toy, flying over New York City:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78

'Boeing Modifies F-16 Fighter Jet To Fly Without Pilot'

~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQpvwOfY8m8
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 14 2013, 03:00 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Pretty eyebrow-raising:

'Logan Airport, Boston United Airlines Aircraft Maintenance Hangar

In 2000, United Airlines approached Rubb about replacing the 757 line-maintenance hangar we constructed for them in 1993 with a larger structure to service Boeing 777 aircraft. The new hangar needed to be built on the same site as the existing building while minimizing downtime of United's maintenance capability. To accommodate this, Rubb began foundation work for the new hangar while still disassembling the existing facility, and designed the building schedule such that United could use the new maintenance facility while internal systems work was still being completed by subcontractors.
' ~ http://www.rubbusa.com/aircraft-hangars/pr...t-boston-ma.php

'American Airlines Hangar at Logan International Airport (Boston, Massachusetts)':
http://wikimapia.org/9608280/American-Airl...ational-Airport

'[United Airlines' largest maintenance facility] Owned by SFO but primarily used by UA and also used by AA.' ~ http://wikimapia.org/27747396/Superbay-Maintenance-Facility

UNITED AIRLINES SUPERBAY
UA SUPERBAY AT SFO INTERNATIONAL
SAN FRANCISCO INTNL AIRPORT, CA 94128
EPA Registry Id: 110008264635
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Dec 16 2015, 12:46 PM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Dec 13 2013, 06:11 AM) *
'According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
'

~ http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/20456

'Life Sized REMOTE CONTROL Hummer - Amazing!'
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaiIcI1xaLU

'Radio controlled cars - Top Gear - BBC'
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35sUu0u8bk

Video camera footage from a remotely-controlled toy, flying over New York City:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78

'Boeing Modifies F-16 Fighter Jet To Fly Without Pilot'

~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQpvwOfY8m8



I saw reference to Poppyburner's first paragraph somewhere and sort of filed it away for future consideration. Something that needed verification, if true. However, the information that three of the four 'hijacked' aircraft all originated from the UA/AA maintenance base at SFO on the day before 9/11, is very interesting. I know nothing of BTS etc and wouldn't know if I was getting good data or not, but can we tell from that information if those 9/10 flights were revenue flights or positioning? In addition, is there/was there any data about the disposition of those aeroplanes before those flights, or was the first paragraph true except for the 'positioning' flights? I mention it only because it occurred to me, but all three of them arrived at their east coast destinations in darkness.

As to remote control, I remember seeing a short item on a Youtube clip about Davis-Monthan AB in Tucson, Arizona. There is a maintenance area there that 'restores' F4 Phantom aircraft and installs guidance equipment to make the airframe a target drone, so that much is pretty old hat. However, the FMC system in most airliners, particularly the 767/757 'pair' (apparently they were deliberately designed to have common cockpits) is very accurate and capable of multiple waypoints and altitude changes. Is it, however, accurate enough to actually fly the aeroplane 'into' a location, rather than just 'to' it? I bet with a beacon of some kind it would be? My second question there is; Can it be pre-programmed with one or more routes and 'stored', so that a new crew could programme their own route and begin flying it, then 'call up' one of the stored routes?

I don't know if this all comes under 'speculation', which I know is verbotten, but I ask these questions so that I can speculate!

Landroger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Dec 27 2015, 03:24 PM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



I have some information coming from a 757/767 driver, which may throw some light on the 'automatic'/'Manual discussion. When the Christmas period is over and the new year is started, he should be able to respond to my request.

Have a good one everyone.

Landroger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 10 2016, 10:31 AM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,113
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I missed this thread all these years.

Yes, a very persuasive case for the laser targeting evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 12 2016, 10:58 AM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE (Landroger @ Dec 27 2015, 07:24 PM) *
I have some information coming from a 757/767 driver, which may throw some light on the 'automatic'/'Manual discussion. When the Christmas period is over and the new year is started, he should be able to respond to my request.

Have a good one everyone.

Landroger.


Well, I've got some information, but it's a bit tricky asking too many very specific questions without raising suspicion! We may have to fall back on people on this forum. I take it we do have pilots on here?


QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 10 2016, 02:31 PM) *
I missed this thread all these years.

Yes, a very persuasive case for the laser targeting evidence.
Amazed.

I have to admit that 'laser targeting' is a temptingly obvious solution, but....... The basis of this is presumably the use of an infra red (usually) laser beam to 'paint' the target and the weapon - whatever it is - uses the 'basket' of reflected beams for terminal guidance to destination? If so, then yes, it is very tempting to have one (or more) laser 'painters' and the aeroplane uses the same or similar guidance, although in the case of WTC it would, as I mentioned, have to be two beams from different places. WTC 1 could be painted very effectively from WTC 7, but WTC 2 would have to be painted from somewhere else - raising the risk of detection just by 'bad luck'.

This is where it all starts to fall apart for me. The laser guided bomb concept is very simple and very effective, but its just a dumb iron bomb, with a gizmo glued to the front end. The gizmo does everything, detects the 'basket', calculates the speed and direction of the bomb, then calculates the offset and applies the correction via the steerable fins. The problem arises with steering a big airliner like a 762. Just how do you set up (and more importantly calibrate) a similar detector head and then - this is the really difficult bit - couple it seamlessly into the FMC/IRS or autopilot of the 762? Of course, the detector head probably isn't the same thing as a PAVE (whatever) guidance head, because that is sized and calibrated for 1000lb iron bombs.

The information I have from my 'source' 757 driver is that the IRS is good enough across the Atlantic, to require a 'Fix' every 5.9 hours and its nominal 'drift' is about 1nm per hour. So, if only required for say half an hour it would only drift a thousand yards, but even that is wildly inaccurate if you need to hit a 208ft target.

I still like using as much of the original kit of a 757/767. For instance the 'Autoland' system running down an ILS type beam, but actually selecting this and 'arming' it at the right time is problematic. My source says 'it is against regulations' to descend on the slope without acquisition', so setting that up as much as half an hour beforehand simply wouldn't be feasible. And given that the descent of both AA11 and UA175 were not far short of dive bombing and UA175 was turning the whole time, it is very difficult to see how this can be squared. It is almost easier for a suicide pilot with knowledge of the automatics, which is a horrible thought.

Any ideas from proper pilots?

Landroger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 13 2016, 05:27 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,113
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



If they can deliver an autopilot that will 'autoland' an airliner, which they have been doing for decades, I see no problem with designing and delivering a "gizmo" that will do the same for the laser targeting system.

This was not a standard 757, it was not UA 175, so it was a special airplane, even as the external fairings show.

If it's true that they have developed a Flight Termination System as some say, the potential is quite large. It's really just a large drone.

I have always considered just how close that ship came to completely missing the tower, with that last minute bank.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 14 2016, 06:35 AM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE
I have always considered just how close that ship came to completely missing the tower, with that last minute bank.
Amazed

It's more complicated than that. I hadn't fully appreciated just how difficult the 'task' of controlling the aeroplane to impact was, especially off a continuously turning and descending approach:-

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...an_Analysis.pdf

It turns out decisions had to be made with millisecond timing and millimetric movements, presupposing that Vmo+150 is possible without structural failure on any control input.

Landroger

This post has been edited by Landroger: Jan 14 2016, 06:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 14 2016, 07:21 AM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



The reason for my edit was that I posted the wrong url for the 'Turning Approach' article. I had posted this one:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...emsMonaghan.pdf

which is an even more interesting article that I had previously read, but not fully understood. I have now re-read it in the light of all I have learned recently and it makes a lot of sense and is most thought provoking.

Of course, I would think that, wouldn't I? Because it plays to what I already feel is more likely. That is; very little modification to the aeroplanes and they used largely what was installed at the time and which certainly appears to be accurate enough. Especially when the following is considered:-

QUOTE
On October 9, 2001, Cubic Defense Systems, Inc.
applied for a U.S. patent for a system that removes
control of an aircraft from its pilot and utilizes an
aircraft's auto-pilot system to implement an
uninterruptable programmed auto-pilot flight plan in
order to navigate an aircraft to a given destination
during an emergency
From Journal of 9/11 Studies.

And:-

QUOTE
The development of the capability of an aircraft
Flight Management Computer (FMC) to take control
of an aircraft away from a pilot and turn over control
to its autopilot system, including apparently Boeing
757's, was underway circa September 11, 2001. The
development of a collision avoidance, control
override capability utilizing a Boeing 757 is
documented as early as 1999. Boeing 757s and 767s
containing common avionics, were used during the
9/11 attacks.
Same source (my highlight)

Again, it plays to my belief that 'drones' aka modified 767 or KC767 aircraft 'dancing in the sky' to seamlessly replace the 'real' AA11 and UA175 were unnecessary and that one of the only 'modifications' to the 'real' aeroplanes was something to remotely incapacitate their crews. After that, all the above becomes possible, 'however improbable' and the questions that remain are; where was remote control undertaken; were the UA and AA aeroplanes so equipped and; was it possible they were so equipped during the period they were evidently at the service base in SFO the day before?

Landroger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 14 2016, 01:27 PM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 579
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (Landroger @ Jan 14 2016, 06:21 AM) *
The reason for my edit was that I posted the wrong url for the 'Turning Approach' article. I had posted this one:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...emsMonaghan.pdf

which is an even more interesting article that I had previously read, but not fully understood. I have now re-read it in the light of all I have learned recently and it makes a lot of sense and is most thought provoking.


I don't believe you've discussed the hijackers yet Roger.
Where do you think they were and what do you think they were doing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 15 2016, 09:58 AM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE
I don't believe you've discussed the hijackers yet Roger.
Where do you think they were and what do you think they were doing?
NP1Mike

Oh that's easy Mike. Dead.

Do you want more?

It depends slightly on whether we believe LiHoP or MIHoP. Personally, I cannot imagine the perpetrators would have left it at LiHoP - the potential hijackers were flaky and probably not too tightly wrapped (if they ever existed.) So, they were unlikely to achieve more than half their objectives and that would just leave a mess. Anger and bewilderment yes, but not 'shock and awe' and that's what the perpetrators wanted and needed. A "new Pearl Harbour" remember?

Two towers in New York left broken and smoking for a few hours, until FDNY got it all under control, just wasn't enough for the perpetrators so, the plan metamorphosed into MiHoP. Two reasons, smoking towers isn't 'shock and awe' - clouds of dust and smoking craters are. And second; the hijackers couldn't be trusted to crash the three, iconic buildings that would create the cover for 'shock and awe'. The buildings had to be crashed so, they were superfluous. They could even become a distraction or complicate matters if left at large. Imagine them actually getting in to the cockpit, finding the crew dead or unconscious and they start pressing the damn buttons? The 'perps' were going to demolish the buildings and kill people, so quietly disposing of a few muppets was of little matter and probably beneficial.

Its all a matter of minimizing the 'operation'. No distractions, very few people in the know - certainly in the 'whole know' - so far I reckon I'm keeping the "thousands of secret agents required to pull off something like this" down to a hundred or less. Probably less than fifty and only a very few of the top echelon know the whole plan. Maybe a dozen? We are talking about ruthless, powerful, mostly career politicians or Military, used to manipulating people to do things they might not personally be happy with. The more I look at it, the more I think it was not only likely, but a lot easier than rational, humane people think it would be.

Landroger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 15 2016, 01:11 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 579
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



Thanks Roger, you have done your 9/11 homework well. We are in agreement with much that occurred. Just a few loose ends here and there.

QUOTE (Landroger @ Jan 15 2016, 08:58 AM) *
It depends slightly on whether we believe LiHoP or MIHoP. Personally, I cannot imagine the perpetrators would have left it at LiHoP - the potential hijackers were flaky and probably not too tightly wrapped (if they ever existed.) So, they were unlikely to achieve more than half their objectives and that would just leave a mess. Anger and bewilderment yes, but not 'shock and awe' and that's what the perpetrators wanted and needed.


Spot on. Far too risky to leave the operation in the hands of 'hijackers'. Too much was at stake to leave it to a bunch of amateurs.

QUOTE
Two towers in New York left broken and smoking for a few hours, until FDNY got it all under control, just wasn't enough for the perpetrators so, the plan metamorphosed into MiHoP. Two reasons, smoking towers isn't 'shock and awe' - clouds of dust and smoking craters are. And second; the hijackers couldn't be trusted to crash the three, iconic buildings that would create the cover for 'shock and awe'.


Exactly. The towers had to come down. Planes alone wouldn't do it.
It was a $trillion+ mission. Why entrust a bunch of hijackers with a plan that could afford no errors?

QUOTE
They could even become a distraction or complicate matters if left at large. Imagine them actually getting in to the cockpit, finding the crew dead or unconscious and they start pressing the damn buttons?


Now you are mixing in some of your pet theory with the 'hijackers' whereabouts.
You believe the crew were incapacitated somehow during the flight by gas or something of that nature (not by hijackers' doings).
I don't believe there were any people on board the planes that struck the towers.

QUOTE
The 'perps' were going to demolish the buildings and kill people, so quietly disposing of a few muppets was of little matter and probably beneficial.


Exactly.


QUOTE
Its all a matter of minimizing the 'operation'. No distractions, very few people in the know - certainly in the 'whole know' - so far I reckon I'm keeping the "thousands of secret agents required to pull off something like this" down to a hundred or less. Probably less than fifty and only a very few of the top echelon know the whole plan. Maybe a dozen?


I started another thread a year or so ago to try to establish how many people were involved in the project.
It never took off. Just a few joined in with their thoughts. sad.gif

A dozen at the top who knew the whole plan, yes.
Less than fifty agents to pull it all off? More than that.
How many agents did you see combing the Pentagon lawn alone? At least twenty five right there!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Mar 2 2016, 07:46 AM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 442
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 16 2016, 02:41 AM) *
Thanks Roger, you have done your 9/11 homework well. We are in agreement with much that occurred. Just a few loose ends here and there.



Spot on. Far too risky to leave the operation in the hands of 'hijackers'. Too much was at stake to leave it to a bunch of amateurs.



Exactly. The towers had to come down. Planes alone wouldn't do it.
It was a $trillion+ mission. Why entrust a bunch of hijackers with a plan that could afford no errors?



Now you are mixing in some of your pet theory with the 'hijackers' whereabouts.
You believe the crew were incapacitated somehow during the flight by gas or something of that nature (not by hijackers' doings).
I don't believe there were any people on board the planes that struck the towers.



Exactly.




I started another thread a year or so ago to try to establish how many people were involved in the project.
It never took off. Just a few joined in with their thoughts. sad.gif

A dozen at the top who knew the whole plan, yes.
Less than fifty agents to pull it all off? More than that.
How many agents did you see combing the Pentagon lawn alone? At least twenty five right there!


Dear 'NP1Mike'

"At least twenty five right there!"

Yes, there were quite a few people scouring the lawn carrying brown 'crime scene' paper bags.
One of those people, 'person', who chose to make a comment about those activities, stated that there was some mysterious "guy" who was controlling them.
In photographs of the activity, there does appear to be a person, "guy", trailing behind the line carrying out the search and retrieve operation.
The person who made the statement did not say what they were all looking to retrieve, but he did say that the "guy" was very much in control of those involved, in fact, in a very menacing way.

Perhaps that is the reason the 'person' did not elaborate on what they were looking for.

It could not have been very big whatever it was because there was nothing evident on the lawn in the photograph, but by the width and the spacing of the 'search detail', it must have been considered to have been spread over a large area.

It is hardly likely that they were looking for fragments of aluminium.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2016 - 05:08 PM