Raytheon involved in 9/11 ???

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Raytheon held office on the 91st floor of the South tower. On that day nobody from above the impact point is believed to have escaped in he South tower while at least 16 people from above the North tower impact point have been known to escape alive.

The strange thing is that Raytheon didn't loose a single employees in the WTC South tower. In other words, they had completely evacuated their offices BEFORE the plane impact!

I want to apologize to other members of this board, that information i provided above is false. I was misled and I took in some bad info from what i though was a reliable source without investigating it myself. Again, I apologize but what I quote above is wrong. Sorry boyz and gurlz!

Cheers,
Pepe Lapiu

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
There is an outrageous amounts of questions that are still to this day being asked by many Americans. But one of them strikes me as an enormeous coincidence beyond any imaginable proportions: the Raytheon coincidences.

The outrageous thing is that people post a few speculations as "fact" and then build a case on it. It's not evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

Raytheon was the 5th biggest government contractor in 2003 and 2004.

And the reason for picking on them was...

As one the the biggest militaty contractor both in America and in the world, Raytheon develloped and introduced the very first remotely controlled and pilot-less Airliner just a couple of months before 9-11according to an August 2001 article in the www.usatoday.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">USA Today

One problem with your research, here. They had just announced this, but there was only one test unit and it had some issues.

Actually, two problems with it: a remotely controlled aircraft is difficult to land and impossible to land at a very busy airport. You can do it in a nice wide field. You can't do it in the middle of other flights. Furthermore, the flight originated from another location... and someone would have noticed there was no pilot. Likewise, the stewards and stewardesses and cleanup crews would have all commented on the lack of a pilot.

In case you haven't flown, the pilots almost always are there watching the departing passengers and waiting to step off the planes themselves.

Interestingly enough, on 9-11 Raytheon lost five of their high ranking employees. As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program (see 1998 (D) and August 2001).

You have no proof of this. In fact, I think that if you actually did the research you would find that they were working on other things.

Someone else posted a statement by the widow of one of the employees... and Raytheon also published their obituaries. It's poor reporting to make accusations based on your idea of what they might have worked on.

A good reporter would also have noted how long it takes a plane to go into production or to retool one after a successful test series has been done. If you'd done that kind of investigation, you would have found out that the time frame for "pilotless aircraft" to be produced after a test was too short to match your speculation.
Raytheon is a huge company, and works on a lot of projects.

Originally posted by PepeLapew

I want to apologize to other members of this board, that information i provided above is false. I was misled and I took in some bad info from what i though was a reliable source without investigating it myself. Again, I apologize but what I quote above is wrong. Sorry boyz and gurlz!

Cheers,
Pepe Lapiu

Bravo! This is a good sign. I had never heard that myself and it didn't sound quite right.

Some notes on what I know to help:
My blog post
On August 25, a FedEx Express 727-200 landed at Holloman AFB in New Mexico using “a Raytheon-developed military ground station.” They also worked on the ground station for Global Hawk. A different company (Rockwell-Collins) actually made the internal controller for the NM test, and other co.s were involved, and of course the Global hawk is actually made by Northop Grumman. So in a way their involvement is less direst than all that.

But...

The NM test was for a system called JPALS, Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, a military project but designed to be “fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology.” They were also involved with this, under contract with the FAA, working on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), designed to improve on the GPS guidance system and bring it up to the FAA’s standards for safety and accuracy. What Byrd means by being able to work at busy airports. It was in the works before 9/11. By Raytheon.
(source: “Raytheon and Air Force Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Precision Landing System.” Raytheon press release. October 1, 2001. Accessed October 28, 2005 at: www.prnewswire.com.../www/story/10-01-2001/0001582324&EDATE=Oct+1,+2001)

(blog excerpt.)

Raytheon published the fact only on October 1, just four days after President Bush announced at a speech in Chicago “we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe [...] including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.” [6] A company official noted in the release their dedication to providing satellite-guided landing systems for “the flying public,” and their pride in being “part of the success achieved this summer during JPALS testing at Holloman.” [7] And proud they should be, that’s some mighty fine timing.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 19-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

My blog post
A different company (Rockwell-Collins) actually made the internal controller for the NM test, and other co.s were involved, and of course the Global hawk is actually made by Northop Grumman. So in a way their involvement is less direst than all that.

Yes the Global Hawk and the Predator UAV's are both made by Northrop Grumman but the flight control systems of both these airplanes are built and developed by Raytheon and Raytheon's E-Systems. Also Raytheon and it's E-Systems division happen to make a large share of the Boeing's flight control systems.

I am building a homebuilt Sonex airplane (two seater) at home and if I can afford it, I'll be installing a E-Systems glass cockpit (flight computer) but they are VERY expensive so I might install the usual cheaper/heavier round gauges.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by PepeLapiu1
As one the the biggest militaty contractor both in America and in the world, Raytheon develloped and introduced the very first remotely controlled and pilot-less Airliner just a couple of months before 9-11according to an August 2001 article in the www.usatoday.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">USA Today

One problem with your research, here. They had just announced this, but there was only one test unit and it had some issues.

And your source for this information would be?

Actually, two problems with it: a remotely controlled aircraft is difficult to land and impossible to land at a very busy airport. You can do it in a nice wide field. You can't do it in the middle of other flights.

The Russians were flying dogs into space with remote control technology some 50 years ago and so did we with monkeys (unless you believe dogs and monkeys can pilot spacecrafts?). Yet you can't wrap your brains around the idea of a remote controlled landing? It's not big science at all, all that is needed is to connect the flight computer to a ground based flight simulator and the pilot controls the aircraft from within the flight simulator. Gueezzus man! They have planes which don't even have a pilot seat, all done via remote control and these planes can land on an aircraft carrier yet you can't imagine a modern airliner being rigged with remote control technology? Besides your idea that they could not accurately land the planes is not relevant, these planes were not intended to be landed and they weren't landed either.

Interestingly enough, on 9-11 Raytheon lost five of their high ranking employees. As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program (see 1998 (D) and August 2001).

You have no proof of this. In fact, I think that if you actually did the research you would find that they were working on other things.

Well obviously you have made some research so how about you tell us what it is they were working on?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
They (Raytheon) also worked on the ground station for Global Hawk.

I really would like you to show me where you got that information please. I believe you but I still would need some confirmation for a project I am working on.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

[edit on 31-10-2007 by PepeLapew]

reply to post by PepeLapiu1


There were remote controlled airliners before and even landed and took
off and not just under the guise of crash testing.

The system may have satellite control as the ultimate improvement.

Raytheon made it big on puts in the stock market according to one CT video.

But 9/11 isn't in a punishing program, its case closed.
The government just programs the people the way it wants.

Hitler and his Illuminati were nothing compared to America and Bush.

At least we won't be over run by Bin Laden and his troops.
Bin Laden: Bush escaped
CIA: Bush was burnt up, no id

Bush is the greatest world conquering programmer of all time.

Suck that up Google.

reply to post by Byrd


It is well documented that Boeing illegally modified several of there large commercial aircraft with gyro scopes that were known as take over chips that would give some one the ability to take back control of a plane. A quote..

Described as "a gyro on a chip," it is used to help control the flight of missiles and aircraft.

On Boeing jets, three BEI microchips are embedded in an instrument box made by French avionics firm Thales.

Acting together, the three chips provide a three-dimensional positional reading, telling the pilot through the flight display the precise yaw, roll and pitch of the airplane.

This no-moving-parts electronic-sensor system acts as a back-up to a spinning gyroscope.

Because of its use in guided missiles, the sensor is classified as a significant military item. Export-control regulations dictate that any larger system containing the sensor — even a commercial airplane — also must be considered a military item.

The first planes were modified sometime in the year 2000. More on the chips here:www.systron.com...

Could it be that the Raytheon and Boeing were jointly testing there remote takeover technologies on 911, or thought they were going to test it.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911


Those electronic gyros or some flight stabilizing electronics were available
to model airplane hobbyists a few years ago.

Tesla teamed up with Sperry in 1917 and tested remote control flight
out in New Mexico. Tesla needed the gyros. UFOs might be self
stabilizing, just have continual drive opposing gravity, and the
gyro needed to tell the occupants where you are. Like a submarine
in the air.

Weather a propeller plane or a pre blitz craft I can't determine.
William R. Lyne prefers the later of course and points it out as
a starting point for serious spy work on Tesla. He suggests various
groups continued the research in the 1930s.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


Sounds like another technology developed with no place to go.

Ground control of airliners went away fast after 9/11 just in case a
CT might evolve.

I was on a satellite company (LORAL) stock board prior to 9/11 and
satellite control was mentioned. However a man on a government
satellite panel did acknowledge such a thing was in the works
but denied the present possibility.
He did think the cell phone from commercial airliners was impossible
(not be installed), yet as CT hit some say government planes had
the capability.

So the hoaxes were familiar with government planes and made the call
or the call was from a government plane.

On another flight, the attendants use the air phone to controllers and
that flight had the middled eastern men that didn't sound Saudi to some.

A solid CT is hard to find.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
A solid CT is hard to find.

damn straight!
and a good thing, too.
huh?
a "solid CT" is brittle and be shattered, unlike a nebulous could of CT which is unbreakable.
truth is indestructible, and can only be covered up, and truth is not conspiracy theory.

reply to post by billybob


Well the whole 9/11 CT has so many events or effects that perhaps
some cause conflicts and prevent a clear two dimensional picture
with so many sides to the story.

Its being analyzed as the latest in a history of terror by government.

Nothing you can do about it.

Some people are making a list but don't think any names will ever
be crossed off.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


The funny thing is and I think we should all agree... and let me add sad to funny.... that all this is just complaining and chatting at a forum nothing more. As close that we could be to the truth... and the exactitude or incredible facts of our investigation... thats everything that it will ever be... the ppl that designed, planned, and ultiamtely gave order for 9/11 to happen prolly have been or had ppl reading for them all our forums... and i am sure I can asure they are still prolly laughin at us.... thats all we can do my friends... complain to our own ears... for this will never make it to a serious public or beyond the control of the media... and have a mass preocupation, mass action effect.... very sad.

Don't forget about those large put options placed in the stock market before the 9/11 incident. One of those companies turned out to be Raytheon.

Originally posted by cloakndagger
Don't forget about those large put options placed in the stock market before the 9/11 incident. One of those companies turned out to be Raytheon.

Yes, there is a list in this video.
THE EMPIRE of "The City" (World Superstate) part 2

At the end under the 9/11 coverage, Raytheon is on a list.

I review these videos picking the times of reference but not this one yet.

its not just about direct involvement either.

Even if they were not directly involved, the "spin offs" seem to be making them alot of money -

assuming this is the same company- Raytheon wins $1.35b contract for UK security

it can only be a matter of time before they reveal the "real" holding company for Raytheon is actually the giant megacorporation "Omni Consumer Products"

lets just hope that Directive 4 still works for the current administration!

edit spulling

[edit on 27-11-2007 by 2ciewan]

reply to post by plaetorian


It might be obvious who the main stream media forum posters are
but they obviously talk to themselves.

But what else can you do on the internet, thats what its here for.

A 24/7 Conspiracy Channel might work for awhile but a Prosecution Channel
would have to start up as well, soon all the internal terrorist will be under
the eye of you and I and we will be out from under their eye.

Lord be praised.

reply to post by 2ciewan


Guess that the whole reason of state sponsored terrorism, to give
the corporations a big contract.


George Carlin: Who owns you Americans?

That goes for UK owned by "The CROWN" perhaps under the Rothchilds
since snookering the London Stock Market after Waterloo.
Not that they got any loans back, false flag information did it.

Educate the masses about mind control over Tesla's discoveries.
In this video about 1hr in, engines without fuel.

Right now I'd say a lot of money has been spent hiding Tesla's technology.
For good reason, the losses would be greater.

Not much we can do about that either except say in you face Rockefeller
Tesla would made you a poor man.

reply to post by plaetorian

and i am sure I can asure they are still prolly laughin at us

I certainly don't think so. I think they are scared #less of us. They take over the media because they are scared of what would happen if we find out the truth.
Cheers,
PepeLapiu
(the author of the o.p.)

it is unfortunate that people died...
but i disagree with some of the base assumtions that they use to draw their conclusions from. its all overtly complex and needless to say the least.
the whole reads like a poorly organised story as opposed to the individual parts which appear well thought.