Evidence Of Remote Controlled Planes At WTC! By Aidan Monaghan

As the aircraft attacks of September 11, 2001 unfolded at the World Trade Center, virtually maximum augmented GPS positioning quality for the entire daylight period was provided to the geographic coordinates for the World Trade Center.

GPS position quality is strongly affected by the number of GPS satellites visible to a GPS receiver and the orbital geometry of GPS satellites with respect to a GPS receiver. Augmented GPS signal receivers and Flight Management Systems that utilize augmented GPS signals for navigation and positioning purposes were scheduled to be contained by American and United airlines Boeing 757s and 767s by 2000.

"Factors that can degrade the GPS signal and thus affect accuracy include the following: Number of satellites visible - The more satellites a GPS receiver can "see," the better the accuracy; Satellite geometry/shading - This refers to the relative position of the satellites at any given time. Ideal satellite geometry exists when the satellites are located at wide angles relative to each other. Poor geometry results when the satellites are located in a line or in a tight grouping."[1]

more here:

www.911blogger.com...

Interesting. Some of the technical jargon was a bit over my head, actaually a lot over it.

IS the jist of this, that the Planes on the day were remoted controlled?

It doesn't say the planes were remote controlled, only that there was a better-than-usual "maximum augmented GPS positioning quality" of signal covering the WTC area on 9-11-2001.

While the find would make remote-piloted planes more feasible that day it is far from proof the places were indeed remote piloted.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


That's correct; it's not proof, but it's suspicious and highly 'coincidental'
that these satellites were in an optimum position to improve GPS receiver
tracking during the time of the attacks on the towers.

Hmmm...

It has always struck me that the morning of 9/11 was an unusally
clear day, not a cloud in the sky. I had always thought it was so
that all the film coverage would be particularly high quality. perhaps
the OP has a point there.

reply to post by turbofan


One could certainly consider it supporting evidence thereof. The author of that article should follow up with a history of how often "augmented GPS service" occurs, to rule out a chance this happens from time to time.

reply to post by Asktheanimals

It has always struck me that the morning of 9/11 was an unusally
clear day, not a cloud in the sky. I had always thought it was so
that all the film coverage would be particularly high quality. perhaps
the OP has a point there.

So based on the fact the weather was clear it proves there was a conspiracy?

Have any other brillant tidbits....

Hay Turbo,

Since you're propagating twoofer garbage, why don't you explain to your equally deluded fanboys what the hay GPS has to do with remote control?

(A Hint to others - it has absolutely nothing to do with remote control at all - Zilch)

And while you're at it you should explain how easy it is to implement remote control in mechanical non fly-by-wire flight control systems such as are on B-757/767 aircraft.

www.911myths.com...

At that link, I cannot find a source for the first graph....lots of sources for tech info on GPS and WAAS, am I missing the source info for the specific graph showing increased signal accuracy on 9-11?

BTW, as a technical fact, the accuracy is always there for the military or USG GPS receiver, it is intentionally degraded for civilian receivers....

www.bcrevolution.ca...

Originally posted by habu71BTW, as a technical fact, the accuracy is always there for the military or USG GPS receiver, it is intentionally degraded for civilian receivers....

Selective Availability (SA) was removed in May 2000. Both military and civilian receivers receive the same signal.

www.lei-extras.com...

Originally posted by Reheat
And while you're at it you should explain how easy it is to implement remote control in mechanical non fly-by-wire flight control systems such as are on B-757/767 aircraft.

Why don't you go right on ahead and assert that this technology or capability doesn't exsist so we can have a good LOL at your ignorance. Twoofer... Grow up.
It's a shame some people didn't watch more Sesame Street, at least then they could argue their childishness with words actually within the English language. This message has been brought to you today by the letters, R and C.

Here is a little tidbit of an observable phenomenon which would suggest that the plane which impacted the south tower was some form of re-confirgured tanker aircraft and not flight 175.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09f84630d229.jpg[/atsimg]

Magnified

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5195e7e55a5.jpg[/atsimg]

Setting aside the bulge that some refer to as a "pod", notice, under the tail of the aircraft a small, dark circle.

On the Boeing 767-200, there is no such mark, because on the 200 there is no tail skid protector, and no avionics blade antenna at that location.

There is however, such a mark, or hole to be precise, on the tanker version, from the retracted or removed rear ported refueling boom.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5ccb260a75b.jpg[/atsimg]

and for those who'll chime in on the history of the KC-767 here, save it, since we know that such developments were under way by 2001 and that it is not outside of the realm of possible or conceivable that a tanker variant prototype of the 767 could have existed, regardless of what the official documents state.

And the result?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efb8c5d0b18d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0371eccab827.jpg[/atsimg]

www.airforce-technology.com...
DESIGN
The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.
The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.
In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

What's more - seemingly unaware of such a possibility (tanker Boeing), a group of German Engineers, in conducting an analysis of the sheer magnitude of the fireball and kerosine smoke cloud resulting from the explosion, concluded that the amount of jet fuel on board, would have had to have exceeded, by at least a few orders of magnitude, that which would be contained in the wing-held fuel tanks of a standard Boeing 767-200 fueled for a cross continential trip from Boston to LA.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c76ea60291b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d5ddb01bb4f2.jpg[/atsimg]

things that make ya go hmm...

especially in light of the proofs of explosives in the destruction of the buildings, a little over an hour after impact.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Hey guys, why wouldn't we think the "DRONES" would be possible?


Look here waaaay back in the very early 60's, almost 50 years ago Drone Substitutes for Civillian AirCraft were mentioned in Northwoods as a suggested plan:

www.smeggys.co.uk...

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio

[edit on 27-9-2009 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


To be fair, they didn't say that the drone would be a remotely controlled commercial airliner, just a drone aircraft transmitting it's signal.

But I have no doubt that 9/11 was an upgraded Operation Northwoods type scenario.

Cloud cover doesn't matter in regards to GPS signal availability.
As far as general cover being optimal? It is optimal all over the country every day. It isn't optimal AT ALL TIMES, but it is optimal every day.

I personally believe that the planes WERE guided via remote control, but this isn't really evidence of that.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


And yet, a simple viewing of the photos taken from the side would show you that your tanker theory is wrong.

Im curious, why do so many people refuse to accept the simple fact that it was a B-767 being piloted by a terrorist with dreams of martyrdom in that photo?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

And yet, a simple viewing of the photos taken from the side would show you that your tanker theory is wrong.

How's that, in what way precisely? Because it was painted with the UA livery, is that it? Is that what you're saying?

reply to post by Reheat


SA was removed, however the accuracy level still differs........direct personal observation....

Here is a series of the few photographs in existence that were taken on 9/11 showing the south power plane in it's final moments before impact. There are maybe only two or three more, along with the few videos which also recorded the plane in the final moments of its flight to the point of impact.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09f84630d229.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bebebd11f1aa.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2eb83033348.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3ec0747066d1.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac3e6212f3d8.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e827f75f9ce8.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0124f0ac0236.jpg[/atsimg]

strange..