WTC 7 - Why?

Installing the remote control technology would be as simple as upgrading some software any many cases. This could have been done weeks even months before 9/11.

If they wanted to automate the entire thing they would have used 777s, not 757s.

But really, Boeing isn't a good choice in the first place:

seattlepi.nwsource.com...

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Stiney]

So, you know how to rig a 757/767 for automatic flight? Are you going to reference a simple "fly by wire" argument here? Not to many 777s compared to 757/767...

Seems like you think that the 757/767 have never been upgraded... from the looks of the following article, it would not take much for the plane to fly autonomously. Right from the NTSB...

www.ntsb.gov...

767 Autopilot Information
The 767 autopilot/flight director system consists (in part) of three separate autopilot systems that can be used singly or in combination to provide automatic control of the ailerons, elevator, stabilizer, and rudder control systems when operating in selected flight modes. Any one of the three autopilot systems can control the airplane in the normal climb, cruise, descent, and approach modes.

The 767 autopilot system controls the airplane's movement about the pitch axis by using the elevators for dynamic control of the airplane's pitch and the horizontal stabilizer to trim out steady-state elevator deflections. When the autopilot is engaged and the airplane is in a steady-state flight condition, the autopilot is designed to keep the elevators near their neutral (or faired) position, using the elevators primarily for short-term dynamic adjustments (such as those necessitated by atmospheric disturbances). The elevators are also used for small trim adjustments, such as those necessitated by fuel consumption during flight. As these small elevator adjustments accumulate over time, the elevator deflections move further from their neutral (or faired) position. When the elevators' deflections reach a threshold value, the autopilot "retrims" the horizontal stabilizer and the elevator returns to a neutral (or faired) position. According to Boeing, when the autopilot system is disconnected, the force applied by the autopilot actuator to the elevator control system is removed, and, if the horizontal stabilizer has not been adjusted recently, small elevator movements result. Boeing representatives indicated that the following circumstances could result in elevator movements at the time of autopilot disconnect:

* Differences between the neutral position recognized by the autopilot and the actual neutral position of the elevator feel-and-centering unit would result in the autopilot actuator holding a force that would be released when the system is disconnected.
* The autopilot may have moved the elevators since it last trimmed the stabilizer, placing the elevators at a position other than their neutral position at the time of disconnect. When the autopilot is disconnected, the elevators would return to the neutral position commanded by the feel-and-centering unit. (During steady-state flight conditions, this situation occurs because of the effect of fuel consumption on the airplane's center of gravity.) According to Boeing, "this type of elevator motion upon autopilot disconnect is inherent in the operation of the autopilot system."
* Pilot forces on the control column at the time of manual autopilot disconnect can affect the movement of the elevator. (The autopilot can be disconnected manually by double-clicking the control yoke-mounted autopilot disconnect switch.)
* Mechanical aspects of the elevator control system (including friction, the effects of compliance in the system,33 variations among individual autopilot actuator units, and variations in the centering detent force) can cause elevator movement at the time of autopilot disconnect.

Boeing's 767 Maintenance Manual indicates that if the autopilot disconnects because of a system failure, the following cockpit warnings and annunciations would occur:

* the red autopilot disconnect warning light illuminates,
* the red master warning light illuminates,
* the engine indication and crew alerting system computer displays an autopilot disconnect message, and
* a siren alert sounds.

Although these autopilot disconnect warnings and annunciations are also generated when the autopilot is disconnected by pressing the autopilot manual disconnect switch on the control wheel, pressing the manual disconnect switch a second time within 0.5 second resets, and thus cancels, the system's disconnect warnings and annunciations before they are displayed to the flight crew. The 767 autopilot warnings and annunciations system contains multiple redundancies. For example, two warning signals are generated for each of the warning functions listed above: one warning signal uses software logic that is powered by normal power (which would be inhibited by a loss of normal power or a computer failure), and the other uses hardware logic that is powered by 28-volt alternating current standby power.
767 Autothrottle Information
The 767's thrust management system provides autothrottle control based on selected modes, existing conditions, and engine limitations. The autothrottle can be operated independently of or with the autopilot system. The autothrottle servomotor generator is connected to the throttle levers through a clutch pack assembly, which, when overridden,34 allows the pilots to make manual thrust inputs when the autothrottle is engaged. Movement of the throttle levers aft of the autothrottle commanded position for a given flight condition would require a manual force of about 9 lbs at the throttle levers to override the autothrottle servomotor clutch.

When the autothrottle function is engaged, it controls throttle lever movement. The maximum autothrottle commanded throttle lever movement rate for a normally functioning autothrottle system is 10.5° per second. Manual throttle lever inputs can exceed this rate; for example, the accident airplane's FDR recorded throttle lever movement at a rate of 25° per second at the beginning of the accident sequence. The minimum throttle lever position that the autothrottle can command varies as a function of the airplane's speed and the autothrottle mode selected. For the accident airplane's flight conditions and the selected autothrottle mode at the beginning of the accident sequence, this position would have been 40° to 50°. The FDR recorded a throttle lever position of about 33° at the beginning of the accident sequence.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I am not going to entertain your ridiculous "mall bombs' anymore. yes, mall bombs would have been easier ...

So if we agree that it would have been easier, posed less of an operational risk, and achieved the same result…why do you think THEY chose to do it the other way? After you give me an even halfway legitimate answer to that question, I promise I’ll drop my ridiculous scenario.

…so ask yourself why the 19 box cutter terrorists didn't do that instead of hijacking 4 planes…

Terrorists are rewarded for their “flare for the dramatic.” Of course, that kind of flare carries a large amount of risk with it…the kind of risk that suicidal religious zealots are willing to take on, and the kind of risk that rich and powerful people avoid like the plague.

We could go on and on with ridiculous "what if" theories without getting anywhere.

I think you’ve proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You think the most modern military power in the world could not pull off 9/11 because it was too complicated and I think that 19 cave dwelling box cutter terrorists could not pull if off because it was too complicated.

I think Stiney’s response to this common argument is spot on. You simply can’t compare the two. Your “cave dwellers” were successful because they got lucky as hell. The most modern military power in the world does not include “get lucky as hell” in the operational planning process.

Again…ask yourself what these two groups would be putting on the line. The “box cutters” had nothing to lose. They were prepared to die and, therefore, their operational risk was zero. You are saying that a bunch of rich, powerful, well-connected people would take on that same staggering risk even though they could lose EVERYTHING.

It’s about RISK. Your version ignores that most base line of human thought.

Well, you believe the CIA, FBI, NIST, Mossad and White House could not pull off such a complex scam yet you want to believe 19 camel jockeys could?

Say someone uses a racist slur like…oh say… “camel jockey.” If one person decides to punch that person, it’s really easy. If another person decides to join in the punching, then the two punchers will have to coordinate a little, but it won’t be too hard. But what if you have three…five…ten people trying to punch the racist. Suddenly it’s really impossible.

To think that simply having more people involved makes something easier is absurd. Logistically, it will always raise the chance of error.

Besides, it's not nearly as complex and impossible as you think.

I tell you what: write out your whole simple theory for us. Tell us who did what, and why they were involved.

I’ll bet you $1 that you give up before you’re done.

Installing the remote control technology would be as simple as upgrading some software any many cases. This could have been done weeks even months before 9/11.

If someone from the airline industry is reading this, I would be fascinated to hear how “easy” you think it would be to coordinate something like this.

My layman opinion is that it would be impossible to do with any degree of stealth.

Doesn't it bother you that at least 5 Raytheon employees involved with remote control tech and/or secretive work died aboard the airplanes on that day?

There are a lot of deaths that day that bother me.

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by PepeLapew
And I suppose that a Pentagon official buying put options against the airlines just before 9/11 is also a coincidence too?

Who? Please supply your source because it's the first thing you've said that actually interested me.

Your answer here: video.google.com...

Also, doesn't it bother you that the best terrorism investigator at the FBI was getting really pissed off and left the FBI because he felt that his investigations were being destructed and sabotaged by his own superiors up top? And when he quit the FBI, do you know where he went to work?

John O'Neill started to work as head of security at the WTC complex on 9/10 and died in the attack the next day. Did the man know too much? Was he too much of a possible whistler blower?

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Doesn't it bother you that at least 5 Raytheon employees involved with remote control tech and/or secretive work died aboard the airplanes on that day?

There are a lot of deaths that day that bother me.

What are the statistical odds of these particular people, with this particular profession would be LISTED as killed on one of the flights...

Neat... If someone rigged those planes for autonomous flight and got PAID to do it maybe, just maybe, they would also like to fake their deaths. Just thinking out loud.

I distinctly remember, during live coverage of 9/11, Diane Sawyer mentioning that building #7 would be taken down by the fire department because the ground-level supports had been knocked out by the impact of the falling towers. She was reporting for WABC TV. Someone must have recorded this--it's got to be out there somewhere?

Originally posted by StarNaos
I distinctly remember, during live coverage of 9/11, Diane Sawyer mentioning that building #7 would be taken down by the fire department because the ground-level supports had been knocked out by the impact of the falling towers.

Bringing down a 47 storey building in not something done in an afternoon, firefighters do no have the skills or materials to perform such a job and even controlled demolition experts would not be crazy enough to walk around a burning building with explosive in hand.

But if it really was taken down by firefithers or anyone else with explosives, you really should try to ask yourself why Silverstein, the NIST report, the FEMA report and the 9/11 commission report are all trying to pretend no explosives were used.

If they admit that explosives were used, they would also have to admit that these explosives were installed before 9/11 hence proving foreknowledge.

they know that anyone who looks at the videos of WTC7 collapsing will right away realizee that the building was brought down by explosives, so they just keep the videos out of the media and they make deliberate efforts not to mention that building in their reports.

Ask yourself why the videos of WTC7 collapsing are never shown on the media. In fact, Rosie O'Donnell started to talk about WTC7 and her contract isn't getting renewed.

Originally posted by Stiney
If they wanted to automate the entire thing they would have used 777s, not 757s.

But really, Boeing isn't a good choice in the first place

Really? Boeing is not a good choice? Well consider this:

A USA Today story from a month before 9/11, announced that Raytheon had remote-flown a FedEx 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico air force base in August 2001, without a pilot.
www.usatoday.com...
(you will have to pay to get access to the USA Today archives)

On at least three of the four sparsely occupied hijacked flights, there was as many as 5 Raytheon employees with connections to remote pilot technology. Including, on Flight 77, the plane which hit the Pentagon, Stanley Hall, director of program management for Raytheon's Electronics Warfare Division. A colleague called him "our dean of electronic warfare" www.usatoday.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, in the days following 9/11, at least some of the bin Laden family and Saudi Royals were flown out on private planes with fake tail numbers from Raytheon's own airfields.
www.saintpetersburgtimes.com...

But just as interesting as which Raytheon employees died on 9/11 is the list of those employees who didn't die. You see, Raytheon help office in the first WTC tower at the 91st floor. In that tower, nobody is believed to have survived from above the impact zone because the stairs were blocked. Well, not a single Raytheon employee died in that tower, as it turns out their offices had been completely evacuated BEFORE the plane struck.

But even more interesting is the fact that after 9/11 and because of the wars ensuing from 9/11 Raytheon (a military contractor) would dramatically increase their share price by over 25% and earn substantial defense contracts.

These setbacks for the company have been more than compensated for by the overall rise in Raytheon’s business since September 11th, including a 26% rise in stock prices. In early 2002, the firm also received a $1.2 billion multi-year contract to provide over 200 T-6A "Texan" training aircraft to the Air Force and Navy. This was despite criticisms just six weeks earlier by the Pentagon’s Office of Independent Testing and Evaluation that there were serious performance problems in the T-6A program.[15]

[15] 'Raytheon Profile', Reviewing Nuclear Proliferation, Reaching Critical Will web-site: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/dd/ray.html accessed 17 April 2002

Bringing down a 47 storey building in not something done in an afternoon, firefighters do no have the skills or materials to perform such a job and even controlled demolition experts would not be crazy enough to walk around a burning building with explosive in hand.

So you're saying that it was planned several months/years in advance, yes? Then we're back to the question of why they would wait until late afternoon. Unless they wanted people to see it? But wait--

Ask yourself why the videos of WTC7 collapsing are never shown on the media.

Oh so they didn't want anyone to see it. In that case-again, why didn't they set off the bombs while the building was hidden behind dust? And... wait... didn't they write a script for reporters? I think your smoking guns may have just shot each other.

Originally posted by Stiney

Bringing down a 47 storey building in not something done in an afternoon, firefighters do no have the skills or materials to perform such a job and even controlled demolition experts would not be crazy enough to walk around a burning building with explosive in hand.

So you're saying that it was planned several months/years in advance, yes? Then we're back to the question of why they would wait until late afternoon. Unless they wanted people to see it?

Let's step back for a second. You are basically saying the 9/11 could not have been created by a rogue element of the American government because they would have used mall bombs and they would have blown up the WTC7 at the same time? Your logic is badly flawed. I am not going to engage in your 'what-ifs" anymore.

You claim WTC7 was NOT brought down by controlled demolition. So tell me then, how did WTC7 collapse? How did it collapse so perfectly vertically when the fires and the debris damage could only occur on a single side of the building?

Tell me why the majority of Americans are un-aware of the collapse of WTC7?

Tell me why the mass media NEVER shows us any videos of the WTC7 collapse?

Tell me why even the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission reports all try very hard not to mention WTC7?

Ask yourself why the videos of WTC7 collapsing are never shown on the media.

Oh so they didn't want anyone to see it. In that case-again, why didn't they set off the bombs while the building was hidden behind dust?

Because a bunker in WTC7 was most likely used as a command post to commandeer the whole event. Only untill late that day, when it was all over did they demolish the whole building, hence destroying possible evidences of they command post.

And... wait... didn't they write a script for reporters?

It's interesting that you should bring out this subject. How do you suppose the BBC was able to report the collapse of WTC7 a full half hour before it actually happened?

Never mind, so far you have completely ignored all my questions and concerns and only tried to obfuscate and confuse with your ridiculous "mall bombs? and the such. I know you will still keep on ignoring the questions I ask.

There is not enough evidence either way. The single most truthfull thing is this:

Bush has only brought the nation down. He is out in one year. It seems awkward to say he did it, but didn't have much luck cast down to him. He's 8 years older, and 8 years more dyslexic. He'll be remembered as the asshole of the earth for generations onward. Clinton won't win next, and I don't see the next president making it through his first 4 years alive. Our borders are gone, our nationality dissolved, and our military significantly weaker. America making it through the next decade would be a gift from God. One thing is for sure, every nation on earth hates us now, and we don't seem to be in the position to be a world saver anytime soon to gain some respect. The nation will die, the people will be subjected under foreign rule, and hell will rise.

The only good news? American citizens are tought to fight for their freedom, the only good thing for liberalisim. So, then nation will rise again in the next generation.

All this from 9/11, and the seperating bond of people and government. All this because our government is so loving of secrets. All this because of corruption. Gnetlemen, we have doomed ourselves.

Perhapse you truthseekers and government believers should join sides and fight for getting in the white house, and disclosing all 9/11 info.

In the words of Forest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that"

Originally posted by PepeLapew

It's interesting that you should bring out this subject. How do you suppose the BBC was able to report the collapse of WTC7 a full half hour before it actually happened?

Have you ever seen a knolegable statement from a news reporter? because I havn't. They put glamer and glasses on to hide their stupidity.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Have you ever seen a knolegable statement from a news reporter? because I havn't. They put glamer and glasses on to hide their stupidity.

I am afraid you don't understand the subject here so I'll explain.

A few months ago a BBC archives footage revealed that reporters from the BBC were actually claiming the WTC7 building collapsed. And as the reporter was talking about how the building had already collapsed in the background you can clearly see the WTC7 still standing up proud and strong. Here's the video of it:
video.google.com...
Now, what's weird is that while the reporter is reporting something that hasn't even happened yet, somebody must have realized the screw-up because she got cut-off suddenly just 5 minutes before the building actually imploded. Had she not been cut-off, we would have witnessed the collapse of the building behind her while she had been reporting that the building had already collapsed for the last 30 minutes.

Now you think about this for a minute: the BBC was reporting a collapse a full 30 minutes before the collapse already happened. How can that be? How can it be that they report things that haven't yet happened?

Well, there is only one way of explaining this: the people who were planning to bring down the WTC7 building made a mistake and got confused with the time zones between England and New York and they let out the press release of the collapse too early.

At the very least, the video of the BBC reporting the collapse BEFORE it happened shows that someone had prior knowledge of the building demolition. the building demolition was already planned, the explosives had been installed BEFORE 9/11 and they screwed up the release of the press release too early.

Originally posted by PepeLapew

I am afraid you don't understand the subject here so I'll explain.

Oh I've seen it before.
That's what I mean. There all retarded.
I'll give you an odd Case. On 9/11, I was sick from school. I was able to watch it all from the first plane to the last collapse. For God knows what reason, all the TV stations but one (CBS, I think) all were cut off when the south tower went down. Then when the north one went down, the helicopter reported said "Are we showing a repeat of the first collapse?" Now, one could point out that she said "First collapse" as if there were more to come. But the way she said it was ever odder, with her sounding almost knowledgeable of the foreseeable future. I'll put it up if I can find it. That creeped me out when she said it like she was anticipating another collapse though, and made me believe in the media's corruption.

Personally, I think the collapse WTC 7, while significant, is not a major piece of the 9/11 puzzle.

Here's what I think happened.

1. The collapse of the twins weakened the foundation of WTC 7, making a collapse inevitable.

2. Emergency managers decide to mount a controlled demolition, so the collapse will happen on their own terms. (this probably saved lives)

3. The government covered up the controlled demo. Why, I'm not really sure, but the reason may either be mundane or stupid. The government does not always make sense.

I do not believe the official version of events as far as 9/11 is concerned, and I instead believe that governmental elements (American included) were essential in the execution of the plot, but I really don't see why WTC 7 is considered such a big deal.

uberrarcanist, I am going to try and address your post but it might take more than a single post for this.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Personally, I think the collapse WTC 7, while significant, is not a major piece of the 9/11 puzzle.

Well, the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 omission reports pretty much all agree with you that WTC7 is not a major piece of the puzzle. In fact, they think it's so unimportant that they have gone through great lengths not to mention it and pretending WTC7's collapse almost never existed. But hey, they are politicians, so we really should expect politicians to hide stuff and lie to us, after all that is the job description of all politicians ...right?

But what about the media? Why is it that the entire media, all papers, newscasts, radio stations and magazines also decided to pretend like WTC7's collapse never existed? How can you explain that the media NEVER shows us the images of the WTC7 collapse? A few days after Rosie O'Donnell mentioned the WTC7 she went on a forced vacation and before she returned her contract had already been terminated. How do you explain the entire media's blockage of the WTC7?

Here's what I think happened.

1. The collapse of the twins weakened the foundation of WTC7, making a collapse inevitable.

I strongly disagree and here's why:
Here you can see a picture of the Marriott Hotel (aka Marriott Hotel). And as the inset shows this building was very very close to the towers yet even thought is has been severely damaged you can see that most of it stood up to the collapse of the twins.


Now let's look at WTC6. Here too you can see that this one is also very close to the twins. And this one is extremely damaged but this building stood up for a very long time until they decided to take it down a few weeks later.


Now consider the position of WTC7 in regards to the towers and the other buildings. Here below we can see that WTC7 was much further away from the towers than any other building yet all those other buildings mainly stood up long after the tower's collapse. It is even partly shielded by the smaller and closer WTC6 which stood up.


So how can it be that the largest building, the one the most further away, the one with the least damage would be in anyway in danger of collapsing? Both buildings on each side of it suffered no structural damage whatsoever. Their face was damaged from falling debris but neither of them were ever in danger of collapsing and putting lives at risk.

........ continued

2. Emergency managers decide to mount a controlled demolition, so the collapse will happen on their own terms. (this probably saved lives)

At least you are willing to admit that WTC7 was demolished via controlled demolition. But here's the problem i have with your hypothesis:
Demolishing a building is not something you can do in an afternoon, it requires weeks and weeks of careful planning and meticulous work, calibrating each charge and calculating the precise timing of each detonation. Only a handful of teams in the world know how to do this. Certainly the FDNY firefighters do not have that sort of skill and they do not stock truck loads of explosives either.

Furthermore, there is not a single worker who would be stoopit enough to walk around inside a burning building with explosives in hand. Imagine if you will, the rescue teams dispatching a demolition team and coordinating a very complicated demolition job and do a 2 weeks job inside one afternoon and doing it in a burning building mind you. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be walking around a burning building with dynamite in my hand .... that's freakin' insane dude, think about it for a second!
Demolition workers are not trained to install explosive charges in a burning building.

You are absolutely right, the WTC7 was demolished with explosives but these explosives could not have been installed inside that afternoon, they had to be installed in the weeks BEFORE 9/11.

3. The government covered up the controlled demo. Why, I'm not really sure, but the reason may either be mundane or stupid. The government does not always make sense.

But it's not only the government that is covering up the demolition of WTC7, it's NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 commission and the entire mass media of north America.
the reason they are covering up the demolition of WTC7 is because if people realize that it was demolished they will have to realize that the demolition was prepared before 9/11. And if people realize that bombs were planted before 9/11 they will also realize that bombs were also installed inside the two towers before that day.

WTC7 proves that the government was directly responsible for 9/11, not Muslim terrorists but the government itself.

I do not believe the official version of events as far as 9/11 is concerned, and I instead believe that governmental elements (American included) were essential in the execution of the plot, but I really don't see why WTC 7 is considered such a big deal.

WTC7 is a very big deal, it is the smoking gun that proves 9/11 was planned and it proves that bombs were installed in the buildings before 9/11. the Muslim terrorists could not have installed the bombs, only people on the inside with complete access to the buildings could do this.

if u ask me i believe that george bush blew up the wtc so that he had a reason to attak iraq and so that his ppl wud luk up 2 im

It seems that all these conspiracy nutballs think that a powerful group of neocons with superpowers beyond that of mortal men infiltrated the key levels of our government, then devised and implemented this 911 conspiracy plot inorder to sell the idea of an Iraqi invasion to the American people.

The basic problem with this concept is elaboration and target. First, why all the elaboration (hijacked jets, kidnapping, pentagon missle, the recruitment of 100's of media people, politicians, air traffic controllers, etc.) just kill a few thousand of us? Second, why target Bin Laden and not Saddam Hussein directly? There are too many simpler plots to have effectively framed Saddam and caused a war. They could've simply killed 3000 of us by releasing a nerve agent at an NBA game, then fabricating the recovery of a couple of suicide terrorists that are later linked to Saddam. In fact, a plot as simple as that would've sold war justification far better than 911. To think they would go to all the trouble of hijacking jets, blowing up skyscrapers, kidnapping people, recruiting hundreds of people to join in on the cover-up, etc, etc, is crazy and not believable even for a bad movie.

The selling of this war has been based on Saddam having WMD's and the intent to either use them directly or give them to terrorists....right? What better way to directly nail Saddam, and justify an invasion of Iraq, than to kill several thousand Americans with an actual WMD and then fabricate intelligence to show Iraq was responsible?

Originally posted by Gorman91
I say it was probably brought down by demos, but not the twin towers themselves. I said earlier that if you were a fire chief who just lost half his men in the towers, would you risk the other half in wtc7 or just evac and blow it up.

At least you understand that WTC7 was brought down with explosives and controlled demolition.
But I want to know: How much time do you think it takes to dispatch a team of demolition experts complete with all the explosives required to do such a job?
Do you really believe there were workers who would be retarded enough to walk around a burning building with explosives in hand?
If I asked you to grab a stick of dynamite and walk into a burning building, would you do it?

Demolishing a building in this manner takes weeks and weeks of planning. calibrating, calculating and some very careful analysis of the blueprints of the building.

Yes, you are correct, WTC7 was demolished, no questions about it, buildings just don't drop out of the sky without a reason. But those explosives were not installed in one afternoon, it was done BEFORE 9/11.

This is the reason why the media never talks about WTC7, this is the reason they never show any of the videos of the WTC7 collapse.
If you look at the videos you can only come to the conclusion that explosives were used.
If you come to the conclusion that explosives were used, you have to realize that they were installed before 9/11.
If you realize that explosives were installed before 9/11 you will also realize that some insiders with full access to the whole building are responsible for the attack.

Here is something you will have a really difficult time to believe but it is the absolute truth: All 3 buildings were demolished with explosives and there were no terrorists aboard any of the airplanes. They were remote controlled. 9/11 was an inside job and your entire media is hiding the truth from you. You TV is lying to you, your newspaper is lying to you, your radio is lying to you.