911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

Brown Bomber

and empty? Or a missile?

The Voltaire Network has looked into the passenger list of those who were allegedly on board Flight AA77 that day. This is what they found to add to the enormous number of "coincidences" of that tragic day.

On board Flight 77 there was a high density of passengers who worked at classified positions in the Defense sector: between 16 and 21 persons out of a total of 58 passengers.

The majority were aerospace engineers. One of them, Mr. Yamnicky, who worked in that capacity for the Veridian Corp., was a longtime CIA operative. Another passenger on the list, Mr. Caswell, led a team of about one hundred scientists for the US Navy. Others worked for Boeing and Raytheon in El Segundo, California, on a project dubbed Black Hawk.

Full details here: http://www.voltairenet.org/article163908.html

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

and empty? Or a missile?

...or a dog......or a big baloon....or a UFO. Anything else it might be?

I wish one of these days that conspiracy theorists would formulate some type of reasonable theory, rather than just throwing mud at the only explanation in town. Then I might start to take some of it seriously.

Brown Bomber

good contribution

thecommander

Brown Bomber wrote: »

good contribution

In the first 2 lines you've gone from its a remote controlled aircraft to a missile. He has a point.

Ken_Is_Here

Missiles can be remote controlled too. Is the implication that the passengers were already dead in their seats or ordxered onto a plane to be 'gotten rid of'?

Brown Bomber

Based on the passenger list of up to 21/58 passengers being involved with the defence industry, could the fix have been in? i.e. were the passengers complicit? Did something other than that plane hit the Pentagon?

Doesn't really matter what hit the pentagon in that case.

drkpower

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Based on the passenger list of up to 21/58 passengers being involved with the defence industry, could the fix have been in? i.e. were the passengers complicit? Did something other than that plane hit the Pentagon?

Doesn't really matter what hit the pentagon in that case.

Out of interest, do you know what % of the US population are 'involved in the defence industry'?
And what does 'involved in the defence industry'mean?

21/58 seems like a big number, but how significant is it really? In respect of a plane leaving Washington DC on a business day?

Perhaps you might come back to us when your theory when it is a little bit more developed than simply throwing out a 'suspicious' number, suggesting the plane was remote controlled/a missile/carried by King Kong, shouting 'ooooooooooooooohhhhhh' and then leaving it at that.

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

carried by King Kong, shouting 'ooooooooooooooohhhhhh' and then leaving it at that.

Eh, King Kong isn't gay.

Brown Bomber

drkpower wrote: »

'ooooooooooooooohhhhhh'

I was trying to keep it as much an open question as possible to see what developed. I am not interested in trying to prove anything to you or anyone else and I certainly don't need your aprooval. I can see why mysterious gets so frustrated, But I can't expect you to connect the dots when you are oblivious to the dots. As you don't seem to have information on Operation Northwoods in your ivory tower. Here is some details as it relates to this thread.

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

- Wiki

5. The suggested courses of action appended to Enclosure A are based on the premise that US military intervention will result from a period of heightened US-Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances. World opinion, and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php?image=05#tt

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php?image=08#tt

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):
(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).
b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack.

The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php?image=11#tt

We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).

the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

Brown Bomber

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

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 stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/operation_northwoods.php?image=13#tt
Still...probably more likely a gay king king did it.

toiletduck

I never understood why CTers go with the missile theory. I mean lets assume US government insiders were behind the attacks, why not take over a plane and crash it into the building (like elsewhere) instead of presumably landing the plane elsewhere, killing/paying off the crew/passengers and hoping that none of the hundreds of people on the adjacent highway would see it properly?

Brown Bomber

And then there are other factors to be considered.

The fact that remote controlled planes was available.

(To date the article see the "other headlines" section "Ex-FBI agent pleads guilty". It refers to Robert Hansson who pleaded guilty on the 6th July 2001) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen#Guilty_plea_and_imprisonment

A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.
The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew cross the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.

The Global Hawk flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images.


"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," said Rod Smith, the Australian Global Hawk manager.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010707000937/http://itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm

(To date the article see the "other headlines" section "Ex-FBI agent pleads guilty". It refers to Robert Hansson who pleaded guilty on the 6th July 2001) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen#Guilty_plea_and_imprisonment

If you compare the wingspan of the Global Hawk Drone and a Boeing 757, which AA77 was, you will see that they are quite similar.

Global Hawk
Characteristics:
Length - ft 44.4
Wing Span - ft 116.2
Gross Weight - lbs 25,600
Payload Weight - lbs 1,900
Fuel Capacity - lbs 14,500
Fuel Type - JP-8
Engine Make - 1xAllison AE3007H
Power - lbs 7,600 (SLS)
Structure - Aluminum and composite
Guidance Navigation - Litton 211G INS/GPS
Data Link(s) - UHF
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2005/Global-Hawk-USAF1oct05.htm

Boeing 757
Length 47.32 m (155 ft 3 in)
Wingspan 38.05 m (124 ft 10 in)
Tail height 13.56 m (44 ft 6 in)
Wing area 181.25 m² (1,951 sq f
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

Firewalkwithme

Just because something is possible does not make it probable.

Brown Bomber

Cartoon_Head wrote: »

Just because something is possible does not make it probable.

True, but I am just speculating and playing around with the possibilities.

Blazer

This is a Boeing 757



This is a Global Hawk




You'd want to be a fúcking moron to mix the two of these up.
None of the UAVs have engines on their wings..real planes do.

Brown Bomber

And a global hawk couldn't be modified to resemble a 757 because...

thecommander

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And a global hawk couldn't be modified to resemble a 757 because...

Global Hawk is about 15 metres long. A 757 is about 50 metres long. A flock of pigeons trained to fly in the shape of a 757 is a more plausible theory.

Firewalkwithme

Brown Bomber wrote: »

True, but I am just speculating and playing around with the possibilities.

I could be wrong but a lot of this stuff seems to be new to you which I assume is why you are posting it here. There have been many, many threads on this forum discussing 911 CT's and they cover in detail what you are talking about (if you haven't read through them you should take a look).

In the 8.5 years since the attack took place, nobody has yet been able to come up with any credible evidence to back up their theories. A conspiracy of this scale would simply be impossible to cover up for so long especially when so many people are dedicating so much of their time to try to find a conspiracy. All that happens is that people set out to prove something so they ignore all of the vast amount of genuine verifiable evidence that exists to disprove their theory and instead focus on a few coincidences, mis-quotes and in some cases, outright lies to try to state their case. All that they are really doing though is putting 2 and 2 together to make 5.

bonkey

the article on voltairenet wrote:

It should be pointed out that the same disproportionate number of passengers with military connections can also be observed in respect of the other 9/11 flights.

How is it disproportionate?

There is no attempt to show what the typical makeup of passengers are. How many should we expect, on these particular routes, flying at that particular time of day? Is there a pattern that this is disproportionate to? Is there a discernible "normal" makeup for these flights?

Here's what gets me though....if I wanted to stage a plane crash, I would do my utmost to make sure that the passenger-list was as vanilla as possible. I would put nothing on it to make anyone look at it and think "that's odd".

In fact, just-about the easiest way to achieve my goal would be to hijack a plane full of innocent people, and crash it into a building. That way, everything would look just like I wanted it to....like a plane was hjacked and flown into a building.

With the possible exception of finding someone willing to die for my cause, just-about the easiest way of making it look like a plane-load of innocent people were flown into a building....is to get a plane full of innocent people, and fly them into a building.

The whole "empty planes and disappeared passengers" thing sounds a bit too much like Millenium (a really, really bad movie) for my liking.

humanji

Would it not be a better idea to get a group of people of arab decent and make them think they are going to die for a different purpose? I mean if stuff like MK-Ultra was possible, could a group be brainwashed into thinking they are working for Al Qaeda? You probably wouldn't even need to brainwash people for it. There's many people willing to die for their beliefs. Terrorist cells are notorious for being isolated from each other. Surely it must be an easy thing to manufacture one to pull off this type of thing with the participants fully in the belief that they are doing it for another reason?

Brown Bomber

Here is another avenue.

System Planning Corporation's Flight Termination System (FTS) and Command Transmitter System (CTS) remote aeroplane control technology.
http://www.sysplan.com/Our%20Capabilities/Radar%20and%20Measurement%20Technology/Flight%20Termination%20System
http://www.sysplan.com/Our%20Capabilities/Radar%20and%20Measurement%20Technology/Command%20Transmitter%20System

What increases the suspicion level for me is the presence of one man, Rabbi Dov Zakheim.

Zakheim, a PNAC signatory was CEO of SPC. Zakheim, as Undersecretary of Defence was also repsonsible for the 2.6 trillions of dollars that had vanished from the Pentagon's books that coincendentally was announced on Sept 10th. Coincedentally AA77 performed an near impossible maneauvre to hit the specific section of the Pentagon which housed the years budgetary information. Strangely, AA77 was piloted by the hijacker Hani Hanjour, who by all accounts was not a capable pilot.

humanji

In fairness, he was a capable pilot. Just not a brilliant one. There were rumours that only an expert pilot could do what he did, but what he did wasn't that extraordinary (ironically enough, if he had hit any other side in the pentagon, then that would have been amazing piloting).

bonkey

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Zakheim, a PNAC signatory was CEO of SPC. Zakheim, as Undersecretary of Defence was also repsonsible for the 2.6 trillions of dollars that had vanished from the Pentagon's books that coincendentally was announced on Sept 10th.

That's not quite what was announced on Sept 10th.
Rumsfeld was bemoaning the state of the systems in teh Pentagon, and stated Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.

Coincedentally AA77 performed an near impossible maneauvre to hit the specific section of the Pentagon which housed the years budgetary information. Strangely, AA77 was piloted by the hijacker Hani Hanjour, who by all accounts was not a capable pilot.

There was nothing "near impossible" about the manoeuvre. It wouldn't have fallen into the recommended operational limits, (which are designed to avoid putting the airframe under stress), but that's not quite the same.

Also, Hanjour was according to some accounts not the greatest pilot, but he did have a qualification, wasn't trying to takeoff or land (the particularly difficult skills), didn't do the greatest job on his approach anyway, and was aiming at a pretty damned big target.

I don't know if there was budgetary information lost as a result of the crash, but I would point out that Hanjour managed to pick the one face of the Pentagon most capable of withstanding and/or minimising the damage, it being the only one on which reinforcement upgrades had been completed.

uprising2

I personally think it was a missile, the evidence is there in the pics,

Outside:




What the "plane" was supposed to get through:


The exit hole:

Columbia

uprising2 wrote: »

I personally think it was a missile, the evidence is there in the pics,

Outside:

Can you tell me what's being highlighted in this picture? Not taking one side or the other, but I can't figure out what that is supposed to be

Mythbusters ought to do a 9/11 episode, that's my contribution to this. It'd cost a bomb (no pun intended) but it would rake in a massive viewership too.

uprising2

Columbia wrote: »

Can you tell me what's being highlighted in this picture? Not taking one side or the other, but I can't figure out what that is supposed to be

Mythbusters ought to do a 9/11 episode, that's my contribution to this. It'd cost a bomb (no pun intended) but it would rake in a massive viewership too.

Sorry I don't know what it is highlighting to be honest, it was just a random image of the pentagon I googled.

thecommander

uprising2 wrote: »

The exit hole:

What does this prove/show?

That a missile exited the other side of the building, or that the plane didn't exit the other side of the building?

Edit: Is this another random image of the pentagon you googled?

Fuzzy Clam

Gee, I hope nobody was parked there at the time :eek:

Goes to show that you should always obey the signs.

In hindsight, that sign should be to the right of the hole.

namloc1980

uprising2 wrote: »

I personally think it was a missile, the evidence is there in the pics,

What about the aircraft debris found and photographed at the scene?

uprising2

namloc1980 wrote: »

What about the aircraft debris found and photographed at the scene?

Can you please show me or direct me to these!

PirateShampoo

uprising2 wrote: »

Can you please show me or direct me to these!

You do know everything in that picture is photoshop?