Why 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job

......I'm interested in a military (Air Force) investigating body, especially appointed by the United States government, announcing the planes would have to have been remote controlled in order to do what they did....

I heard something about this. Where is the reference please?

As a pilot, I don't see the 9/11 planes did anything extraordinary. Hitting a large stationary building in a straight-line descending trajectory, as long as you're at the controls in the cockpit, is the easiest thing in the world. Far easier than landing on a runway, for example. You literally couldn't miss it.

Doing that by remote control, however, would be virtually impossible. I just can't see how that could possibly be done. Unless someone has some evidence to demonstrate some extraordinary remote technology? Anyway, piloting the plane from the cockpit, at the controls, it would be incomparably easier to hit a building, assuming that was your intention.

Originally posted by bovarcher
Doing that by remote control, however, would be virtually impossible. I just can't see how that could possibly be done. Unless someone has some evidence to demonstrate some extraordinary remote technology? Anyway, piloting the plane from the cockpit, at the controls, it would be incomparably easier to hit a building, assuming that was your intention.

Don't we HAVE remote controlled planes? Oh yeah, we DO. So, what is your problem in seeing this?

www.engadget.com...

It says post 9/11 but I remember remote controlled bombs from the first Gulf War and videos of them blowing up. This was the first I saw though. I'm also pretty sure that the global hawk is remote controlled. I could be wrong though.

[edit on 10/26/2007 by Griff]

This is the earliest example of radio control that I can think of.

War-weary Fortresses, sometimes called "Weary Willies", were also put to use as "BQ-7" radio-controlled flying bombs in "Project Aphrodite". These aircraft were stripped of armament, filled with 9 tonnes (20,000 pounds) of explosive, and fitted with radio control. They were to take off with a pilot and copilot, who directed them toward the target and bailed out. The unpiloted BQ-7s were to then be directed to the target by a controller aircraft. The top of the cockpit of the BQ-7 was cut open to make bailing out easier.

source

Three questions I have regarding remote takeover:

Why such erratic flights on the two World Trade Center planes?
Why did flight 77 fly over the Pentagon on the way into town and then hit the light poles?
Why wait so long to flip the switch and turn flight 93 around?

reply to post by Boone 870

With regard to the erratic flights of the remote controlled aircraft, I wondered if that could be evidence of the patsy hijackers trying to override the remote controls that their employers used to send them and so many others to their deaths.

Don't we HAVE remote controlled planes? Oh yeah, we DO. So, what is your problem in seeing this?

Yes, remote controlled aircraft have existed for 50 years.

Not impossible to fly an aircraft by remote control, but much, much more problematic and risky than flying it from the cockpit, which is straightforward and easy. With RC you need forward-facing cameras, skilled remote operatives, super-clear viz or some sort of radar guidance, allowance for signal time-delay and a whole barrel load of stuff making the operation more risky and prone to failure. And there is no evidence for anything like this here that I have ever seen.

On the other hand the pilots' identities are known, and piloting the aircraft into fixed vertical structures in clear view in real time under direct human vision from the cockpit would be far easier and well within their modest skill range. You really would need to be grossly incompetent as a pilot to miss those buildings, or else you would intentionally want to miss. And anyway the evidence is clearly that that's what happened, so why argue about it?

Why were no planes scrambled for intercept? The US military and the american government are very close these days

Here's your answer:

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Boone 870

 

With regard to the erratic flights of the remote controlled aircraft, I wondered if that could be evidence of the patsy hijackers trying to override the remote controls that their employers used to send them and so many others to their deaths.

I can't believe I'm even responding to this but here goes:
OK do you actually think that IF the government installed a remote pilot system, and installed agents as patsies, they would also install a master cutoff so once the patsies found out what was really happening, they couldn't stop the government? I know it's a serious run on sentence but hopefully I got my point across. One simple kill switch and nobody on board would be able to do ANYTHING to retake the controls.

There were no patsy terrorists, just terrorists who hate america and what it stood for. Why is this so hard to believe?

Why were no planes scrambled for intercept? The US military and the american government are very close these days

Planes were scranbled from Otis ANG (Cape Cod Mass) and from
Langley AFB in Virginia. The Otis planes scrambled at 8:52Am, just after
Flight 11 hit the North Tower of WTC. In fact if not for Boston
Controllers breaking protocol and contacting Otis directly rather than
through FAA in Washington DC would not have scrambled in time. Otis
planes arrived just as Flight 175 was hitting South Tower. Were originally
routed just off shore while controllers tried to locate Flight 11 (which had
already crashed)

www.cooperativeresearch.org... ational_guard_base

There were no patsy terrorists, just terrorists who hate America and what it stood for. Why is this so hard to believe?

Because Science is proving a different Theory/ or rather many possible theories. Because if you actually start looking at the consequence of peak oil, and the position it puts America in as an empire, you begin to see the decline and lack of control the leadership will have over its populace. Will you enjoy paying mega bucks for products which are created from oil derivatives, never mind not being able to afford the gas station full prices costs? Go away and look at who own OIL and Military companies. Spend a few weeks digging and then start to think along the lines of these guys and there survival. When you see the cash flow, I am sure that to some the loss of 3000 lifes is meaningless compared to the billions of dollars now rewarded to them through industry contracts and lower oil prices.

Yes there are rouge groups in the world, and what better way to get them p*ssed than blame them, sh*t, job done if you can actually get them so angry they carry out attacks allowing tangible proof of their doings. (IE upset the Taliban)

Tell me this, since your beloved USA walked into Afghanistan, why have poppy fields been allowed to thrive, the Taliban cut them down, the USA lets em grow - CIA and other government agencies and parties sell drugs world wide, why, to help fund corporate business, etc.

With all due respect sir, you really need to look at your countries underworld and then look in the mirror and ask yourself, where am I?

But honestly, look at drugs and the Oil business, especially the transport needs for the USA, 40% of oil must travel in or around. For example. IRANIAN water. Look at the big business economic and demographic picture

Originally posted by rocksrhot

There were no patsy terrorists, just terrorists who hate America and what it stood for. Why is this so hard to believe?

Because Science is proving a different Theory/ or rather many possible theories.

Since you are invoking the name of science, please use it to prove a conspiracy. Speculation is not science. Please present cold, hard facts.

Because if you actually start looking at the consequence of peak oil, and the position it puts America in as an empire, you begin to see the decline and lack of control the leadership will have over its populace.

You're assuming the world has reached peak oil. It hasn't.
For example, Shell oil company has recently applied for a patent for removing oil from shale rock.

A source: www.weeklystandard.com...

Also, who in the world has the largest oil reserves??? The United States.

Will you enjoy paying mega bucks for products which are created from oil derivatives, never mind not being able to afford the gas station full prices costs? Go away and look at who own OIL and Military companies. Spend a few weeks digging and then start to think along the lines of these guys and there survival. When you see the cash flow, I am sure that to some the loss of 3000 lifes is meaningless compared to the billions of dollars now rewarded to them through industry contracts and lower oil prices.

I think you're confusing opportunist scum with murdering scum. There is a difference.

Yes there are rouge groups in the world, and what better way to get them p*ssed than blame them, sh*t, job done if you can actually get them so angry they carry out attacks allowing tangible proof of their doings. (IE upset the Taliban)

They don't need our motivation. They hate just fine on their own.

Tell me this, since your beloved USA walked into Afghanistan, why have poppy fields been allowed to thrive, the Taliban cut them down, the USA lets em grow - CIA and other government agencies and parties sell drugs world wide, why, to help fund corporate business, etc.

No, we don't have the troops to guard every inch of the country to stop it. You see, we have idiots running the wars. We also don't have the same reign of terror the taliban used to keep control.

With all due respect sir, you really need to look at your countries underworld and then look in the mirror and ask yourself, where am I?

With all due respect, you do not know me or what my knowledge base is so please reserve your judgments for people whom you actually know.
I know where I am.
I know I love my country and it's constitution.
I know the current administration is run by monkeys with blinders on.
Yes I know my countries government is not run well at the moment and at it's best, it's never been perfect.

There were no patsy terrorists, just terrorists who hate America and what it stood for. Why is this so hard to believe?

Because Science is proving a different Theory/ or rather many possible theories.
Since you are invoking the name of science, please use it to prove a conspiracy. Speculation is not science. Please present cold, hard facts.



Well tower 7 and fires bringing down that building. I have yet to see evidence thats shows a fire truly brought that puppy down and NIST have no full or hard evidence to prove the governments theory.

Because if you actually start looking at the consequence of peak oil, and the position it puts America in as an empire, you begin to see the decline and lack of control the leadership will have over its populace.

You're assuming the world has reached peak oil. It hasn't.
For example, Shell oil company has recently applied for a patent for removing oil from shale rock.

A source: www.weeklystandard.com...

Also, who in the world has the largest oil reserves??? The United States.



Ok, now comes the counter

www.energybulletin.net...
www.netl.doe.gov...

you see, financial markets run well if speculation is good. Now what cost will it take to get a barrel of oil out of this new find? does the cost/benefit show long term hi value?

You outlined similar to this ostseis.anl.gov...

please note, they don't know how successful this will be in the realms of large scale manufacturing! you also have serious environmental issues and legislation to overcome www.greenpeace.org...

Development Timeline. Currently, no organization with the management,
technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical Summary
and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.

Source: www.rand.org...

So who is gonna pay for all the testings, failures, research? would it be that cheaper oil imported into the USA will allow more money on such projects?

Finance is the motive for all business, even dirty business.

reply to post by rocksrhot

Well tower 7 and fires bringing down that building. I have yet to see evidence thats shows a fire truly brought that puppy down and NIST have no full or hard evidence to prove the governments theory.

You're using a lack of conclusive/complete evidence as support for conspiracy. It doesn't work that way.

That's like saying, because the police can't figure out exactly how someone was killed, the police must be the killers. They still know who killed the person. The person is still dead. These 2 things don't change because they don't have every last detail.

New sources of oil are being found all time.
As yet another example:


Blowing up the WTC towers has nothing to do with oil prices. Since oil companies are free to charge what they want for their products, they can easily inflate their prices without the need for some grand conspiracy.

So, once again, please show evidence that the WTC were not blown up by terrorists.

reply to post by jfj123



I can't and won't even elude to prove the government did it, however I see no proof they didn't do it. It is simply up to each person educated judgment. There is absolutely not one once of evidence that says a hidden government agenda did not carry out 9/11, there are however plausible documents to suggest that government entities do think and plan such occurances (Northwoods Project) for example.



With regards the science, I cannot see the failures of buildings being that simply of airplanes hitting 2 towers yet destroying three.

journalof911studies.com... this site holds serious debate on issues which remain ambiguous and unclear.


www.constitution.org...

But yes, in my view, this is all related to global economy and the USA seeking to keep its Empirical hold in the world


You seriously believe what Fox News tells you, Well sir your prerogative and enjoy the b*lls*it storm we are supposed to believe.



[edit on 27-10-2007 by rocksrhot]

Originally posted by rocksrhot
reply to post by jfj123

 

I can't and won't even elude to prove the government did it, however I see no proof they didn't do it. It is simply up to each person educated judgment. There is absolutely not one once of evidence that says a hidden government agenda did not carry out 9/11, there are however plausible documents to suggest that government entities do think and plan such occurances (Northwoods Project) for example.

I'm sorry but this is horrible deductive reasoning
By your logic, you also can't disprove that giant, purple, flying, invisible wombats are what is responsible for the destruction of the towers, so automatically they are suspect.

With regards the science, I cannot see the failures of buildings being that simply of airplanes hitting 2 towers yet destroying three.

You not being able to see it, isn't science. No offense. Science would entail using physics, structural engineering, etc. to either prove or disprove how the collapses happened.

But yes, in my view, this is all related to global economy and the USA seeking to keep its Empirical hold in the world

Is there any evidence that would make you think this?

You seriously believe what Fox News tells you, Well sir your prerogative and enjoy the b*lls*it storm we are supposed to believe.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but just as a blanket statement-I don't believe everything I'm told regardless of the source. I know from experience that FOX News is inaccurate and biased. It's never a good idea to trust one single source for information.

Keep in mind that what you are implying is that FOX News is part of the conspiracy that destroyed the WTC towers. What other news ogranizations are also involved? Does that include local news also? The more people you involve in the conspiracy the more improbable it becomes.

Where do you get your information? Which sources do you trust? Obviously FOX News is not one of them.

reply to post by bovarcher


are you are out to discredit peoples individual views and the way by which we reach them?

On the science front my link is my view, there is no clear evidence one way or another, but my mind is made up from outside factors of politics. i see global economics as drivers for 911. this is my view, obviously not yours.

there are species out there undiscovered, any animal environmentalists can show you this. now whether they are purple with 10 ears who knows, but don't make my logic sound stupid for your own entertainment please. Disprovable facts requires facts, facts we don't have for 911. there is nothing wrong with having a reasoning from prior events which show how sick government can be. (Iran Contra Affair ETC). In fact your attack on my reasoning, is an attack on a lot of others here in this forum. Thought and views are deducted by reasoning of facts, proven, an your government has a big record of being secretive and injursome to countries for years. (Weapon sales - CIA putting Pinochet in power ETC)


I imply all mainstream media is owned and used as a propaganda machine, that is what it does best after all. hell it even got most people to back a war, after which we find out there is a pants load of lies being told about Weapons of mass destruction.

I do notice though you give no rebuttals to the oil issue you raised, you just try to cut my thoughts down.

I will not respond further to your negative interjections.


Peace

Originally posted by rocksrhot

are you are out to discredit peoples individual views and the way by which we reach them?

I am looking for the truth. Twisting and ignoring facts is not the way to find the truth. If someone has incorrect information, anyone should try to discredit it so we can move on.

On the science front my link is my view, there is no clear evidence one way or another, but my mind is made up from outside factors of politics. i see global economics as drivers for 911. this is my view, obviously not yours.

Then you don't have a science front. It's called an opinion. I don't begrudge you to have an opinion, only that you should state it as such. And obviously you are not remaining open minded to the truth as, "your mind is made up". Obviously no more evidence is needed for you to form your opinions.

there are species out there undiscovered, any animal environmentalists can show you this.

Sorry no environmentalist can show me undiscovered species as upon showing me, they become discovered.

now whether they are purple with 10 ears who knows, but don't make my logic sound stupid for your own entertainment please.

I'm not trying to make your logic sound "stupid" as you put it. Your logic is doing a good job showing this on it's own.

Disprovable facts requires facts, facts we don't have for 911.

Again, you're confusing the lack of evidence with a conspiracy. You can't call it a conspiracy without the evidence which you lack. Circular reasoning.

Maybe you should start by explaining what evidence your answers you are lacking.

there is nothing wrong with having a reasoning from prior events which show how sick government can be. (Iran Contra Affair ETC).

At know point did I ever state my government was perfect. I'm sure I could find equal offenses in your governments history. Although previous criminal behavior goes to show history of deception, it doesn't automatically mean guilt in this instance. If you shoplifted gum when you were 12, should every store ban you because of your history?

In fact your attack on my reasoning, is an attack on a lot of others here in this forum.

I can't fix your reasoning. If something is wrong with it, it should be challenged. Sorry you took offense as none was intended.

Thought and views are deducted by reasoning of facts, proven, an your government has a big record of being secretive and injursome to countries for years. (Weapon sales - CIA putting Pinochet in power ETC)

Most if not all governments have been guilty of this at one time or another. Please don't pretend that the U.S. government has been the only one that has done things they shouldn't have. Again, that doesn't mean the U.S. government is guilty of the WTC attacks because Pinochet received weapons.

Please also keep in mind that the conspiracy you have described now involved thousands and thousands of people all of whom have remained completely silent and have never made a mistake leaving definitive proof behind. Doesn't that sound INCREDIBLY unlikely to you ?



I imply all mainstream media is owned and used as a propaganda machine, that is what it does best after all. hell it even got most people to back a war, after which we find out there is a pants load of lies being told about Weapons of mass destruction.

I do notice though you give no rebuttals to the oil issue you raised, you just try to cut my thoughts down.

I will not respond further to your negative interjections.


Peace

reply to post by rocksrhot

I do notice though you give no rebuttals to the oil issue you raised, you just try to cut my thoughts down.

I did respond, you must have missed it. Sorry.
If you would like me to respond further, please just ask what questions you would like answered. I will do my best.

I will not respond further to your negative interjections.

My intent is not to insult or belittle you in any way. I am simply disagreeing with your logic and describing why I disagree. Again sorry you took offense, none was intended but if there is something wrong with a post, everyone has a responsibility to point it out so everyone can get better information.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Do you have a source for this information? It's great that this claim has been made but I haven't seen anything to back it up