It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The attempt to stop the hijackers in the air with remote and Raytheon?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 02:59 AM

Flight 11:
Peter Gay was Raytheon’s Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif.

This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk. (ISR Journal, 3/02)

Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.

David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.

Flight 175:
Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense.

And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the while working in the Pentagon.

Flight 77:
Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare.
One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."

Charles S. Falkenberg:
He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology.

Raytheon is working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.

Now, if this is not coincidental enough for you:
What are the odds that Raytheon also had one office in the WTC2?
(AP, 9/11/01)

It was located in 91st floor in WTC2.
Raytheon shared the floor with Washington Group and Gibbs&Hill.

While 13 employees of Washington Group died

None died from Raytheon and Gibbs&Hill:

This is rather surprising as after the hit of the second plane only four people survived who were above the 78th floor where the plane hit.

(Research from former DU member John Doe II)

[edit on 26-9-2009 by kdsidk]

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 03:13 AM
Well, that immediately does raise the question: If there were remote control capabilities on those planes, why weren't they used to stop the hijackers? Maybe because they were a little busy using them to fly the planes into buildings?

If we find out that those individual planes did indeed have remote control capability, the kind that can override cockpit control, they are screwed either way. They either deliberately did not use them- screwed #1- or deliberately used them to hijack the hijackers and crash the planes- screwed #2.

No wonder the executive from Boeing said "We can't talk about that because of national security," when they were questioned about the anomaly under the wing seen in so many videos.

So, the gazillion dollar question of century: DID THE AIRCRAFT HAVE REMOTE CONTROL ABILITIES, AND IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT?

I don't suppose Boeing's up for answering that either, eh? I guess not. Yeah, that's a national security issue alright.

posted on Sep, 26 2009 @ 09:09 AM
i think you can prove there was remotes on the plane simply because 11 of the raytheon employees were collectively on the 3 planes that hit the targets... they seem to be the failsafe o nthe plane or something..... but something may have went wrong... like a jamming signal or take over signal of the remote from another location ... by another intelligence entity aware of the sting.... like the israeli art students maybe... who had access to that type of intelligence. This would explain the warnings that people got too, because it wasn't that people knew there was going to be a inside job, they knew that we were planning a sting to capture these 19 guys at once... and use this as proof we need to go to war in afganistan, which would explain the war plans on Bush's desk. The collapse of the towers may have been the contingency plan... because if we didn't caputre the terrorists then we needed something of equal value to bring about the wars, shock value. Everything fits.

new topics

log in