Russ,

We all know you think AA77 hit the poles and caused all that physical damage. We know you believe AA77 hit the pentagon. We know you have an uphill battle trying to convince others looking at the poll.

You have said you are thinknig it was remotely guided (meaning remote control).

My question is, why dont you concentrate on proving remote guidance since we already know you think AA77 hit the pentagon?

You're just spinning your wheels every time you present another flight path to "match" damage. The Official Story says AA77 hit the pentagon.. We already know that. We dont need you to keep reminding us all day, every day.

Why not work on something you believe that doesnt fit the official story? Such as your remote guidance theory...

I'd be highly interested in that work.. and can probably help you with some of my military connections.

GREAT diversion and change of subject!!!! But I'll play the game.

All that research is gone right now. Dylan has a CD of it I should have it in a few days. I will present a portion of it here since I am not done.

Since it involves avionics I am going to be weak as you know.

The basics are:

1) The only precedent we have for 9/11 as far as a published government plan goes is Operation Northwoods which involved remote control (A flyover has no precedent).

2) To get the "helpful wave of national indignation" to justify the invasion of a foreign country which we did 27 days later.

Here are some other possible similarities:

1) Creating a justification for invasion of a country.
2) The search and destruction of WMD's (missiles).
3) Overthrow of a Dictatorship.
4) Willingness to harm American citizens.
5) Repainting aircraft to appear as a civilian airliner.
6) Drone aircraft.
7) Swapping of aircraft.
8) Carefully selected passenger list.
9) Evacuation of passengers at a remote runway.
10) Detonating an aircraft remotely.
11) Planting of aircraft parts.
12) Conducting funerals for mock-victims.
13) Deceiving members of our own military.
14) Using air defense exercises as a cover.
15) A series of well-coordinated incidents.
16) Giving the appearance of being done by hostile forces.
17) Manipulating the media to create national indignation.
18) An attack in Washington.
19) Using plastic explosives in carefully chosen spots.
20) Hijacking.
21) CIA involvement.
22) False identity for the pilot.
23) The State Department also promoting justification for invasion.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/north.html

We also know that a dual Isreali/U.S. citizen who was an original member of the PNAC and the CFO of the Pentagon was an executive in a company that specialized in flight termination systems, remote guidance of drones and radar emulation technology.

Here is a brief on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_S._Zakheim

See Systems Planning Corporation: http://www.sysplan.com/

Here is the PNAC here: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/who.html

There were 4 specially configured 757-200's acquired about the same time the wall was being reinforced. There were also 4 spares acquired which are at an AFB in Florida.

You can read about the first time purchasing process here and the new maintenance team that took control of the aircraft without normal military accountability.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/099.html

Here is where the other four went. Same configuration and era as N644AA.



This all-white Boeing C-32B, 00-9001 (c/n 25494) belongs to the US Air Force's 486th FLTS (Flight Test Squadron) of the 46th TW (Test Wing) which is part of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) based at Eglin AFB, FL. It is also used by the US State Department's Foreign Emergency Support Team. Note there are no military markings, only the "09001" registration is located under the last few rear pax windows with a US flag next to it.

A C-32B is a 757-200 with Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 series powerplants, while a C-32A is a 757-200 with Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series powerplants.

This aircraft previously served with Avianca (Colombia) as N987AN from 1994 to 1999, and is a 757-23A.
http://hnlrarebirds.blogspot.com/

"There are also four C-32Bs (used civil 757-200ERs), operated by the US Foreign Emergency Support Team in a white livery with small USAF markings. Their numbers are 98-6006, 99-6143, 00-9001 and 02-5001. They are apparently operated by the 486 th flight test wing on behalf of other US agencies, maybe including the CIA."

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRtypen/FRC-32A.htm

NOTE: They are at Eglin which is where we had some "terrorist" training and where the first Operation Northwoods planned their passenger swap. Hmmmmm....
EDIT: See upcoming post for actual training location.

What? You don't like conspiracy theories now?

So now we have a precedent.

Somebody in position within our government connected to the technology (did I mention that SPC works with Eglin?).

The avionics on a new 757 purchase the same time the Pentagon wall was being rebuilt bought as a civilian purchase for the first time with a newly formatted maintenance program outside of military accountability.

4 more questionable aircraft acquired and stored at Eglin that the avionics could be swapped to.

Sorry - the hijackers were reported to have been at Pensacola Naval Air Station.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm

To me it is worth a look. It will never be proven I agree.

But let me ask you this - since you believe the towers were hit by planes, do you believe human hijackers were at the controls or do you believe in remote guidance??

If you want to see what I believe (and post for all to see in my own name) then you should read these two pages.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bigpic.html

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/laws.html

The reason I keep ideas open here is because I like this forum. I respect Dylan and trust his judgement on new ideas being exchanged. It also allows people to point out my flaws and errors which I want corrected before I present information on a larger scale.

IF a plane hit the Pentagon and people suppress that then the investigation is stopped. It will NEVER go any further. That's it.

IF a plane hit the Pentagon like they did at the towers then at least we have a chance to move forward and learn how.

IF this is all proven wrong and I return to no plane then I will KNOW why I believe what I believe and not just be repeating what everybody else is saying.

Then I would be the best no plane advocate because I FULLY explored it for myself and can explain every aspect of it in detail.

That is not what is happeming though. What is happening is that I can't erase a 20 ton generator and numerous other factors I have mentioned in any logical fashion.

IF a flyover is proven then I will become the biggest proponent of that if it it is true. I haven't seen the evidence yet.

Are my motives clear yet? Is anybody being harmed? Or are we all learning instead of parroting each other?

For the record I fully believe in the remote guidance (at the towers) theory but I also don't see it as provable.

I certainly see Dov Zackheim as an obvious and beyond suspicious high level operative.

But just curious......do you have any proof that he is really a dual American/Israeli citizen?

I have been called out on that one but couldn't find anything legit to back it up.

This is what I have.

"Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov (linked below) tells us Zakheim was/is a dual Israeli/American citizen and an ordained rabbi and had been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years"

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publis...icle_1047.shtml

Here is a lot of info on him. I am not anti-Isreal in any way as I am not anti-any-country but do feel the destruction of Arab autonomy is a goal of Isreal as they state in their own words.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Temp/Temp-...now-ThomasA.htm

Diversion? Game? [laughing]

Russ, im just asking a question since we already know the official story of a plane hitting the pentagon... but for some reason you feel the need to prove it.


I'll read the rest later.. looks like you been busy..

Im busy actually getting stuff done other than a forum.. already spent too much time going round and round with you.. ;)

Fair enough. Maybe I am getting defensive for some reason.

I have a fair amount of research into that possibility. There is a person/paper trail that is actually interesting. I don't know how to prove it in any way.

I have not completed deciding what I believe. I have been shifting towards a plane while studying how it might have happened. There will be a lot of room for your ideas when I get to the possibilities and the realities of the different types of swaps possible and the practicalities involved that I don't understand.

I will finish my mechanical damage consideration along with a flyover for the time being. Then I am going to turn up the heat on some form of a swap investigation if I decide I firmly believe in a plane.

It is a long process for me to change my mind.

I still can't figure the hiding of video and the use of secondaries exactly either but I follow a research path until it collapses or it blossoms.

The "official story" is that a plane was hijacked and under the control of Hani Hanjour at the time of impact. That you have NEVER heard me say!

Yeah that is all I could find too.

They don't source it.

He was born in Brooklyn.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was some how granted dual citizenship through his deep family and high up government connections but there just doesn't seem to be any confirmation of the claim.

This is everything I get with "dov zakheim citizenship": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d...eim+citizenship

and "dov zakheim citizen": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=d...zen&btnG=Search

I have not read them all.

So if anybody is willing to ponder this then let me elaborate on the preliminary thoughts and why IF a plane hit the Pentagon it had to be remote control of some sort and what I see the possibilities as being.

Sitting at the Sheraton and looking down at the Pentagon around that time of the morning makes you see one thing. The south side or the Pentagon mall area is glowing like a natural target. The area struck is in a dark, undefined, homogeneous hole. Under ANY form of pressure it is NOT a natural target. You had to really want to get there.

The mall would have done a lot more damage. There was also the option of the roof which is huge and obvious and would have taken you into many more occupied offices. Going over the building into the bright white Capitol was also an option.

Then there was the option of circling into the offices in the front of the building with no obstructions at all. This is where Rumsfeld sat talking about the Pentagon being the next target without going to top security level or evacuating "E" ring.

"Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: 'Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us.'

Moments later, the plane hit. Mr Rumsfeld ran to the point of impact and helped load the wounded on to stretchers before retreating to the secure National Military Command Centre, beneath the building. There, he refused entreaties to evacuate even as the Centre filled with smoke." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../16/wbush16.xml

If he believed there were other attacks coming and there was a 4th plane loose, what in the world would posses him to go out onto the lawn and risk his position protecting our nation unless he felt safe or knew he was safe?

So you literally choose THE most obstructed area of the Pentagon. Antennas to avoid, poles etc. etc. etc. and the only place that required an altitude problem to navigate. Look at the Pentagon from the air. There was no worse target. Then add that the wall hit was reaching its completion of being reinforced that week. Then add that it was the least populated target. If ANY casing had been done the reconstruction of that wall would have been obvious for up to 3 years and some of the contractors had even published their work on it on the Internet.

So we have determined it required a lot of determination to hit that EXACT spot.

Operation Northwoods even included an attack on Washington. It reminds me of vandalising our neighborhood as kids. Every time we went home we knocked over the trash and stuff at our own house. Since we were hit - it wasn't us.

Then under the umbrella of appearing innocent by virtue of the fact you were hit you had the accounting offices that just announced $2.3 trillion missing the night before and the Naval intelligence that opposed Rumsfeld's intelligence of which only one member survived right at your impact site.

So your control options are forcing a real pilot to do it - NO way. A truly skilled suicide pilot - HIGHLY unlikely. An inexperienced pilot with no 757 experience - near IMPOSSIBLE. So how do you do it and how did they do it at the towers?

The simplest idea to me is a disabling of the crew and passengers through depressurization or a gas. The gas thing is a little "mission impossiblish" for me but so is the whole operation. Then an electronic hijacking of the plane.

The secondary concept is that the 5 unidentified bodies the State Department claims to have are patsy hijackers. They disabled the crew and then were somehow disabled themselves - I don't know.

If I understand the FDR correctly the Kollsman window and the autopilot had to be manually changed. JDX can weigh in here. What was the last time something documented required human control? But after the last time the autopilot was turned off is approximately the time the apparent targeting towards the Pentagon began.

So maybe the plane was under control of patsies up until that point. I don't know if the FDR has any data pertaining to cabin environment that might lend a clue? JDX?

I was told by one pilot that a backup plan into the FMS could be triggered remotely or that one could be uploaded through a small antenna adaptation? Does the FMS read differently or would it be indicated as operating on the FDR? JDX?

What Operation Northwoods says if you read it carefully is:

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

1) They planned to create the fake airliner first from CIA resources.
2) They planned to swap it and steal a real airliner.
3) They planned to convert the REAL airliner to a drone since it needed special avionics.
4) They planned to destroy the real airliner (avoiding serial number problems).

Could they have acquired N644AA for a time replacing it and then putting it back? Could they have crashed the replacement plane and we now have one of the white planes with N644AA serial numbers. I have documentation on them swapping serial and tail numbers from the FAA on those white planes I will show later. Where was the plane for the other 20 some hours on the FDR?

So this leads me to ask:

1) How did AA77 get configured to be remotely guided?
2) Could it have been done without detection by the pilot?
3) If not, was Burlingame convinced he may be participating in a special anti-terrorism op since that was his specialty? They did fly him into his old offices and his friends who opposed Rumsfeld. Then they tried to deny him an Arlington burial and a missing man formation. They finally consented under pressure and gave him an E6B Prowler flyover instead of F-18's or something. They didn't have a lot of respect for the guy.

JDX - weigh in on the avionics realities here.

The one difference I would suggest is that in this day and age they would not allow survivors to be swapped and whisked away. I believe they may have even showed the planes as falsely booked so that there would be less casualties on all the planes. Mitigation is evidenced in many modes of 9/11.

1) The tower fatalities were very minimal compared to a true surprise attack.
2) If they had not been demolished and toppled over instead many more people would have been crushed for blocks.
3) WTC7 could not have been intended to be at the same time as the towers since Giuliani was inside at the time. It was brought down without casualties later.
4) The Pentagon damage was mitigated by the wall and low occupation. Also, maybe the exit hole was meant for escape.
5) Flight 93 was interrupted.
6) All planes had very low occupancy.

So is there a way to have electronically hijacked the actual N644AA with the said passengers on board into the Pentagon?

It would appear to everybody as what they said it was including witnesses. It could have the right serial numbers. The targeted individuals would actually be dead and the scene would look like a 757 hit it. It is less complex and risky than a staged scene in many ways. It would also have a real FDR to be recovered. Why does the FBI claim the CVR data was no good even though the NTSB claims it was downloaded?

Are there any pros or cons in the FDR data? Or are there fields missing that would have given us a clue?

This is an important issue. A lot of people think the weakest point about LC is the Pentagon "no Boeing" part.

Just a couple of observations..

The renovations, low occupation (both planes and buildings), the 'area struck is in a dark, undefined, homogeneous hole', the additionnal damage, etc...
all points towards the fact that they needed to have control of the scene.. make sure evidence of 'drones' doesnt exists..

If something goes wrong before it reaches the controlled scene, the 'special' plane really need to turn into very small confetti...

Why didnt they make up a (more believable) story like: 'the hijackers had a bomb and they used it..' ?

Because youre not allowed to board a plane with a bomb like that... and the hijackers couldnt have crashed on their own by being incompetent at flying the plane since they're pretty good at piloting one..

The main problem I still have is that when you begin to examine all the aspects of 9/11 down to the details, this inside job did really require a pretty large conspiracy... many persons had to be on it... makes me want to [puke] ...

Hetware,

I believe it is very worth the whole group here jumping in and giving it a fair consideration from as many angles as possible.

IF it is ever displayed that a plane hit we need to have a prepared possibility rather than a void of apparent ignorance when it does.

I don't know why they are saving the Doubletree video until a delivery date of "by November 9th" even though they released the Citgo now. Remember it avoided release under the first FOIA because from their angle it couldn't show the "impact"

It could show a plane on a suicide path though. Keep in mind we still have a video out there that fits this description, "MCINTYRE (on camera): ……"Sources tell CNN that the FBI on September 11th confiscated a nearby hotel’s security camera videotape, which also captured the attack. So far the Justice Department has refused to release that videotape. Aaron."

And this, “A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation. It may be the only video available of the attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon’s heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance, including video monitoring.”
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Inside%20the%20Ring.htm

They both fit the Doubletree very well especially the latter. It was also lightly implied in two conversations I've had with them that it may have been from there and viewed by employees. What caused the "shock and horror"? You can also see the blatant lie in that paragraph about the videos that were eventually released by the Pentagon.

I will not put anything past them. The new video could be a dud or a real bomb. We will find out.

Russell

racerx,

Confetti = flight termination system.

If it was the actual N644AA the serial numbers would be accurate. There might be avionics in the debris that were not normal but they could escape notice or be recovered since the NTSB was shut out of the scene unless monitored by the FBI.

It could also be the reason the debris are under lock and key somewhere.

The 9/11 Commission report does state the hijackers had knives, bombs, mace and box cutters.

If a few hardcore insiders were aware of it from our government and the actual operations were hired out to somebody who stood to benefit to a greater degree than their value for American lives then it could be carried out much easier without detection. Remember one of the first 9/11 stand down orders was in the Intelligence agencies. They were really chasing somebody in their minds and told to stop. Add a couple of people in critical spots to "drop the ball" (even if they didn't know specifically why) then you have a realistic number of "Americans" aware of the plot. The rest were hired from outside and didn't care as long as their goals were achieved.

hi Russel!

You should spend some dollars for a real big flight simulator of a Boeing! In Berlin is a big system ... and I'm sure, you'll find one in the USA ;)
There you can try a long high speed flight just a few feet above the ground. Just try it! You'll be surprised what happens :D

Honk,

It was not theoretically very long for a few feet above the ground.

Watch the videos here for a similar example.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7107377291537651710

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4226287825647195043

Or read this thread: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=8403

Please try and keep this thread to a CONSIDERATION of replacement technology. It is NOT being stated as fact but only thought through as a POSSIBILITY.

There are other threads on simulators.

Thank you.

Russell

a length of 4 or 5 football fields IS a long way! Just try it! You can't hold the huge machine above the ground. No way! The ground has to be flat like a runway of an airport. And even while a landing on an airport, the nose of the plane must be higher than the tailsection! Otherwise you'll hit the ground ... not the building!

In case of the Pentagon there was no flat ground ... a highway, a river, some buildings... that's all like a magnet to the machine. Believe me. You also should ask that question to some pilots.

EDIT @ JDX: Am I right?

Honk,

Please do not distract this thread. Stick to the Consideration of a remotely guided aircraft. There are plenty of places to discuss your ideas all over this forum.

Russell

mod edit: please stay on topic.

the two examples (googlevideo) you give do not show the planes "a few feet above the ground", unless by a few you mean 40 to 60 (at least) feet. Plus there are no poles or changes of elevation in the videos, as those are missed runway landings, where the coast is clear. Plus none of the planes in the videos attempt to correct their paths (turning hard right or left), they are flying in a straight path parallel to the runway.

and in spite of all of that (clear path and being high above the ground, and NOT changing direction, nor hitting any poles) the planes in the videos did NOT land, and presumably had to try again, meaning that even with clear coast the pilot was not confident in hitting his target (a safe landing).

the vids are not supportive evidence of sustained flight at the height in question at the Pentagon, since they seem to have little bearing on wether "It was not theoretically very long for a few feet above the ground". They are not similar flight situations, at least not in my admittedly untrained/inexperienced opinion.

the height of the flight in question has to be measured by the fence/generator that were supposedly taken out by the supposed plane's wing and engine. Oh yes and remember the grass in that area as well, since that also establishes that the alleged plane sustained flight above the ground but below the highest mark of wall damage.

This puts the alleged flight much lower than the flights in the videos.






remote control:
(quik distinction: the following arguement is based on remote controlled, NOT remote guided flight. To me the difference is that remote guided leaves the possibility of a plane being "homed in" to its target using some sort of beacon located at the intended impact point. By remote controlled i mean a plane flown/guided by human control via remote device):


you yourself point out russ what a terrible target that section would be for a 757 sized airplane. Based on that difficulty, you have surmised that a remote controlled 757 would be able to accomplish the maneuver more successfully, correct?

do you have any scientific proof that indeed remote flying of an airplane, specifically a 757, is easier by remote control than with a pilot actually at the helm of the controls?

what i fear is that you have oversimplified this extremely difficult flying maneuver into something some kid could do with radioshak toy. What i mean is that you have not considered that remotely flying an airplane is much more involved and complex than just sitting behind a joystick somewhere.

You are suggesting that someone had the expertise, and a plane of that size was responsive enough to this would be r/c controllers input, that he guided this plane into Pentagon. Or are you?

i think you are heading in the wrong direction with your line of logic. The target is difficult, we agree there. But remote guidance of a 757 does NOT make the target more feasible or easier to hit, IT makes it MORE difficult. Proof: wtc's 2nd impact.

Think about the 2nd wtc plane. I believe this plane was r/c guided. Its target sitting 1100 feet up in the air, protruding without any obstacles, would be as easy as a target could get. Yet that plane almost managed to miss the building. Why? Because whoever was at helm of the "joystick" was not able to guide the plane with enough precision to make a "good hit". He had to bank at the last second and ended up only hitting the corner of the building.

im sure it was intended for this plane to hit center, that way the fuel would not have exploded outside the building, thereby helping to reinforce the "melting steel" explanation. None the less "they" try to convince people of this melting theory, but the skeptics all point at the fuel that blew up OUTSIDE of the building instead of INSIDE it, as proof that the explanation is insufficient. SO im sure the planners as well as the r/c pilot all intended to hit the wtc building as close to center as possible, but because the task is much more difficult than even they anticipated, the plane almost missed.

my point is that such remote flying is tougher than you are giving it credit for, even in an instance when the target is extremely isolated and elevated. The Pentagon, according to your own confession is a nightmare of lightpoles, and elevation changes, with many obstacles in the way of a clear flight path. But somehow someone behind a joystick was able to process 2nd hand data from the actual (757) plane through some command center monitor screen (while possibly onboard a plane nearby), and know exactly how to keep the plane flying all the way to its target?

let's say an actual person was in the cockpit of the plane that made the second impact at the wtc: doesnt that prove my point even more? that a pilot sitting at the helm of the actual plane almost missed. SO how much better could someone fly a plane by remote control?

look here (though im sure u already have, so i dont mean to be insulting by suggesting it):

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family.../757finalvr.mov

there you can take a virtual tour of the 757 cockpit. Look at all that immense, complex amount of hardware and software, plus the flight controls, and tell me that somehow flying this machine by remote is easier.

flying a plane is an interactive task (the possible reason that the german poster -honk - recommended that u try a high-grade simulator). The feeling of the pressure against the controls (steering wheel and foot controls) is part of what the pilot has to process in making his decisions of what inputs to make. I cant imagine that the remote control command center could accurately recreate or depict these "pressures" (for lack of a better word) against the flight controls enough for the r/c pilot (or even an actual pilot behind the actual wheel of the alleged 757) to be able to successfully reach the target.

p.s.

i think remote guidance (via beacon centered at target) is even more difficult (to the exact location of the Pentagon impact) and therefore even less feasible/plausible as a possible scenario.

there are too many variables invloved to simply put a 757 on a heading to its target and letting it fly on its own. A missile, yes, but a 757, no. A plane of that size would have to be flown, not sent on a predetermined course, to its target.

It is always clear when distraction is the intent.

Please stay on topic everyone and let Russell do his thing...

Im watching this thread and interested in Russell's work regarding this theory. I would like to keep it free from debate... (unlike the rest of the pentagon forum).


If you would like to debate Russell on this topic.. please start a thread in the debate forum. PM me if you dont have access.




[cheers]

My .02,

its very easy to install remote guidance into a 757. All you would actually need to do is pre-program the autopilot/FMS for the final straight leg and turn the thing on remotely (the complete flight could actually be pre-programmed for that matter).

There were 3 (or 4.. i forget) antennae's on top on the pentagon wedge that was hit held down by sandbags. This could have been some sort of localizer/GS system. These type of aircraft have very sophisticated autopilots that can land themselves in bad weather. Its called Category IIIC ILS if anyone wants to look it up. This type of equipment could have been installed on this airplane...

However, it doesnt explain the Flight Data Recorder... so until we get answers for the FDR conflicts, Its good to see Russ working on something rather than the official story that we already know. Please let him do his work so we can get this forum back on track.

JDX,

I pretty much laid out the outline until I get some of my documentation back on CD.

I agree with you on debate. I have nothing to debate on this. It is 100% the exploration of an idea.

I would like your feedback when you have time as to what you think is realistic and what is not.

I know it is not proven that a 757 hit the Pentagon and I understand the FDR data is in conflict with one doing so. But IF one did, is there any data in the FDR to indicate the answer to any of the questions? Or are there fields missing that would provide answers?

I guess I would like to find the most direct and least detectable path for the possibility of replacement avionics or a replacement aircraft scenario. IF one did hit the Pentagon it HAD to be technologically guided.

I will wait for some input. Mostly my angle from here will be questions trying to rule out ideas or incorporate them.

No matter what the pertinence to the Pentagon is, it could also apply to the planes that hit the towers most likely (in my opinion).

I hope others will add ideas to this as well.

Russell

I still have a couple of more threads planned for other analysis and testing. Sorry.

The development of this idea is enmeshed in discovering if a plane hit or not. If one didn't then replacement technology or plane swap ideas makes no sense and are futile.

It has to be demonstrated a plane may have hit in order to figure out how it was done.

If no plane is proven or if a flyover is proven then these ideas go away.

That has been my methodology all along. I am testing the evidence in context with the development of an alternative. It's that simple.

IF a plane hit I DO NOT believe there was a human at the controls.

I just feel it is worth looking at.

If this aircraft was modified for remote guidance, there no telling what else was modified, right down to the FDR.


In other words, if they took the time to modify the aircraft... everthing surrounding the pentagon and the aircraft could have been modified/fabricated.


As for the FDR itself.. there is already a plain as day cover-up shown clearly between the animation and csv file... there is NO WAY to explain that one away.. its a cover-up.. period. The animation was made to make the aircraft appear lower than it was... deception was used.

1) An outright lie that is designed to scare people from talking about the Pentagon. If any of the events of 9/11 are investigated they will lead to the exposure of a mountain of incriminating information that will be largely unrelated to holes in walls and a lack of debris, bodies and luggage. 9/11 research isn't about lamp posts or missing engines that are the size of SUVs. Once questions start being asked, the stuff you and I argue over here will be considered details, trite and largely meaningless.

2) We move forward with or without the planes and the alleged Arab hijackers. I can talk your ear off about the characters populating the shadow government that ran Iran Contra that killed untold thousands of people and destroyed entire cities here in America. The toll of large-scale cocaine smuggling into America by the CIA and its military assets is far greater than the toll of 9/11. And the folks that brought you South Central LA crack cocaine houses with the profits laundered thru HUD to enrich some folks within the shadow government and to arm folks in Latin America, those same criminals that ran that shadow government are empowered today and are operating with virtual impunity. Wanna talk about planes, Russell? Who gives a shit about planes when Richard Armitage is hand crafting military black ops around the world. Catch my drift?

3) This isn't about you or your pet theories Russell. It is about the truth. You are ignoring facts for the sake of your pet theories.

4) This essay may not change your mind about NPT, but at least it should open it to an array of information that shouldn't be shut out to preserve the illusions of the plane huggers.

5) Your motives are in question. Are you here to staunch conversation about the Pentagon? Better not be.

George,

It is obvious I stimulate and encourage discussion regarding the Pentagon at all levels.

Physical evidence is important to me and any true investigation.

Yes - the big picture is much bigger than probably any of us realize.

My "pet" theories shift and modify as I consider different possibilities.

Plane hugger is a term that does not apply to me. The evidence for an aircraft at the Pentagon cannot be erased with labels for people who look at all things.

Questioning my motives serves no purpose. When I see a compilation of your work in a responsible fashion based on all the evidence we can discuss this again.

The thread here as usual is getting distracted. What does that tell you?

JDX is trying to support a fair consideration of ideas here. I did not start the thread - I am responding to an honest question and did it in fair detail admitting the weaknesses and limitations with the evidence I feel is possible.

Think and read before you react.

Russell

I think Russell is doing a great job sofar, what if the Pentagon was really hit by flight 77, if at 1 point they will show us evidence that in fact a boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, be it flight 77 or not?

We need to rule out any possibility, so they (the government) cannot lure us into a trap. If at this moment the government would show a video which clearly shows a 757 digging itself in the Pentagon (or Shanksville) that whole subject will be hard to approach.

If the government would present a clear video with a 757 a lot of 'truthers' will become sceptic about the 'conspiracy theory', not to mention those who are sceptic about it already.

Personally I do believe the Pentagon was hit by a plane, not sure if it was a 757 though. That does not mean I do believe the official story that it was hijacked.

Thank you Gussie.

What was that for?

The post JDX edited.

Russell,

This site was referred to in an essay by Morgan Reynolds. It argues that the technology exists, in fact has been operational for some time for a plane to camouflage itself against any background, such as a clear blue New York sky on a September morning.



<cut, paste>"One of these systems is the "electrochromic polymer" that is being developed at the University of Florida. These thin sheets cover the aircraft’s skin and sense the hue, color and brightness of the surrounding sky and ground. The image received is then projected onto the aircraft’s opposite side. When charged to a certain voltage, these panels undergo color change. Another similar "skin" is being tested at the top-secret Groom Lake facility at Area 51 in Nevada. It is reputed to be composed of an "electro-magnetically conductive polyaniline-based radar-absorbent composite material." The system also utilizes photo-sensitive receptors all over the plane that scan the surrounding area, subsequently the data is interpreted by an onboard computer which outputs it much like a computer screen making the aircraft virtually invisible to site."</cut,paste>

So you have to consider a low altitude flyover at the exact moment of some sort of explosion, be it due to impact from some aerial projectile or from bombs planted within the targets, is at least plausible.

I'm no spokesperson for NPT, but I know that a large part of their argument is based on the idea that whoever set out to pull off the attacks of 9/11 had to be guaranteed success at each aspect of the mission.

We will agree that part of what the attacks on WTC was was a major psy-op.

The question presented by NPT folks that must be answered is could the mandated amount of damage needed to sell the psy-op to the public have been accomplished with hollow, soft-aluminum Boeing jumbo jets. What I'm saying is a variable that had to be avoided was:

The plane hitting the building and not penetrating to the required depth. For example, the first hundred or so feet of plane does penetrate, but as the building craters (something that doesn't happen in the alleged footage of the event) and as the plane slows (again something that apparently doesn't happen, the plane flies through the building like it would were if flying through the air) half might fold inwards and upwards, eventually breaking off and exploding as large chunks of plane rain down on the streets below. (The video footage shows no shredding of the plane. In fact the plane doesn't explode until, if you slow the footage down and watch it frame by frame, until it is entirely in the building. Interesting, no?)

In other words, imagine if the Boeing didn't do the damage necessary to sell the official lie to the public. What if it broke apart and created only a small fireball and half the plane was sticking out of the hole and the fire burned itself out before firemen could arrive on the scene.

What I'm saying is the guys who planned this thing had to be guaranteed a spectacle. They had to be guaranteed that those buildings would be almost decapitated by what would appear to be the soft aluminum and hollow body of a jumbo jet. Nothing else would suffice. Nothing short of this would work.

Needing this illusion, would they trust that the planes would act like we have been led to believe they did on that day or is this a variable, a risk, that must be eliminated? If so, how would you remedy the risk using drones? Pack them with explosives? What if the explosion is too big (which in my opinion it was in the South Tower)? Maybe you have explosives detonate in the bldg at the exact same time that the plane hits it? But what if this is apparent in the footage, such as the timing of the explosion being off by a couple of seconds or the plane appearing to be blown apart by the explosions in the building as the building craters and the plane shreds as a natural aspect of the collision?

My defense of NPT is simple. The folks that pulled this operation off couldn't take the risks they would have been taking were they to use real planes. The planes wouldn't have penetrated deep enough fast enough or have exploded in a big enough fire ball that burned long enough.

I do think a drone was used. The cameleon plane was the drone. And it was shot down in Penn. airspace after the mission was complete.

George,

Like I said, your ideas are respected.

I'm just not ready for invisiplanes personally.

Russell

Ha! :D Me neither!

Come to think of it, I'm not ready for any of this!

The smoke and mirrors of the cave may well be proven to be just that. How many people will be ripped apart in the process by those avoiding this unwanted revelation is one of the questions that may be answered the hard way.