9/11: How it was done, comprehensive analysis

Border-Rat

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.co.uk/

The jist of it;

1) Hijack airliners using a system designed previously for re-taking airliners from hijacked cockpits. I.e. when a plane has been hijacked, the 'remote recovery' system can take control of the plane and land it on a runway with SWAT waiting. The hijacker is powerless. This technology existed long before 9/11. You could go at the rudder with a crowbar but it would be useless. The pilots on 9/11 were powerless.

2) Impact them against towers.

3) Implode towers

4) Blame a man who vehemently denied involvement

EgyptAir Flight 990 was crashed into the Atlantic using 'remote recovery', a trial run for 9/11.

No wonder Germany demanded the 'remote recovery' system be removed from planes.

Mystery over.

kippy

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.co.uk/

The jist of it;

1) Hijack airliners using a system designed previously for re-taking airliners from hijacked cockpits. I.e. when a plane has been hijacked, the 'remote recovery' system can take control of the plane and land it on a runway with SWAT waiting. The hijacker is powerless. This technology existed long before 9/11. You could go at the rudder with a crowbar but it would be useless. The pilots on 9/11 were powerless.

2) Impact them against towers.

3) Implode towers

4) Blame a man who vehemently denied involvement

EgyptAir Flight 990 was crashed into the Atlantic using 'remote recovery', a trial run for 9/11.

No wonder Germany demanded the 'remote recovery' system be removed from planes.

Mystery over.

Remote recovery. Interesting. So how does this work in the real world?

Border-Rat

kippy wrote: »

Remote recovery. Interesting. So how does this work in the real world?

The plane has to be compatible first. It's installed as a security measure incase the plane's cockpit is hijacked, not every plane can simply by comandeered remotely. Equipped planes can then be landed by AWACs (In fact up to 8 can be controlled at once). One benefit aside from the theory of secure landing is lowering insurance. After 9/11 German national carrier Lufthansa had all of its compatible planes grounded untill their flight computers were completely stripped of remote recovery. Remote hijacking is quite feasible, lets not forget the Iranians landing a US Stealth drone via remote hacking. Though some say with Chinese assistance.

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

After 9/11 German national carrier Lufthansa had all of its compatible planes grounded untill their flight computers were completely stripped of remote recovery.

So you think Lufthansa immediately cracked the conspiracy?

studiorat

So why have hijackers on the plane at all?

This theory first turned up in October 2001 and has pretty much debunked itself. The author though now dead described himself as the following :

A US military analyst based in Australia
An ex-British private security expert
A British aeronautical engineer
An Australian-base freelance journalist with over 30 years direct experience in international military and oilfield operations
And a former member of the Society of Licensed Aeronautical Engineers.

There is no such society as the last one.

He has also proposed theories about Diana princess of Wales and amongst many others the CIA organised the Tsunami of 2004.


The original article states :

"Though the Official Secrets Act prohibits me from stating exactly how many armed aircraft are available in Britain or America in peacetime, rest assured the figure is exceedingly small. Any reasonable and intelligent person can deduce from this, that aircraft based close to major cities like London and Washington, DC, will not be armed at all in peacetime."

This in fact is untrue.

The article also stated that the USAF was instructed to step down. That didn't happen either, Otis and Andrews both scrambled planes. Armed with Sidewinders.


There's also the issue of communications. The original theory states that the "Home Run" remote control cuts off communications with the plane. This was before the knowledge of the intercom communication from the Hijackers mistakenly broadcast was known.

The story about Lufthansa has never been confirmed. It is interesting that it has referenced itself. Whereby the original idea was quoted in an interview by a German politician and then that interview used as the original reference. A pattern that repeats itself through out the story.

Here's a technical article which examines the possibilities.

Brown Bomber

I have no idea why you've brought up some supposed decade old, unsourced claims of some unnamed dead person.

studiorat

That unnamed dead person is the primary source of the remote control theory in the OP and the of the Lufthansa story.

Though you're right his claims are un-sourced.

I have no idea how you don't understand than.

Brown Bomber

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Why don't you link to to this supposed "primary source"?

studiorat

"Home Run" Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft

Copyright Joe Vialls, October 2001
http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
Click Here For Printer-Friendly Version


Pentagon Strike
Boeing 757 x 1
About 230,000#
WTC Strike
Boeing 767 x 2
420,000# each
Flight 175 Impact +1 Second
(Allow Time for Video to Load )

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis,
with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined
to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American
multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency
(DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked
American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, "Home Run" [not
its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to
cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of
its computerized flight control system by remote means.
From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or
flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed
automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a
radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty
years after its initial design, Home Run's top secret computer codes would
be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the
four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on
11th September 2001.
Before moving on to the New York and Washington attacks, we first need
to look at the ways in which an aircraft is normally controlled by its
pilot, because without this basic knowledge, Home Run would make no sense.
In order to control an aircraft in three-dimensional space, the pilot uses
the control yoke (joystick) in front of him, rudder pedals under his feet,
and a bank of engine throttles located at his side. Without engine thrust
the aircraft would not fly at all, so the throttles are largely self
explanatory: For more speed or altitude increase throttle, for less speed or
altitude decrease throttle.
In order to raise or lower the nose of the aircraft, the pilot pulls or
pushes on the control yoke, which in turn raises or lowers the elevators on
the horizontal tailplane. To bank the aircraft left or right, the pilot
moves the control yoke to the left or right, which in turn operates the
ailerons on the outer wings. Lastly, to turn left or right at low speed or
"balance" turns at high speed, the pilot presses the left or right rudder
pedals as required, which in turn move the rudder on the vertical
stabilizer.
Back in the early days of flight, the control yoke and rudder pedals
were connected to the various flight control surfaces by thin cables,
meaning the pilot had direct physical control over every movement the
aircraft made. This was no great problem for an average man flying a small
biplane, but as aircraft grew ever bigger, heavier and faster over the
years, the loadings on the control yoke and rudder pedals became huge,
certainly well beyond the ability of a single pilot to handle unaided.
By the late fifties we were well into the age of hydraulics, where just
like the power steering on your automobile, hydraulic rams were placed in
line between the pilot's control cables and each individual control surface.
Now when the pilot moved the control yoke, the cables activated sensors,
which in turn activated one or more hydraulic rams, which in turn moved one
or more control surfaces. For the first time since Bleriot and the Wright
brothers, pilots were of necessity being steadily distanced from direct
control of their own aircraft.
When the multinationals and DARPA finally came on the scene in the
mid-seventies, aircraft systems were even more advanced, with computers
controlling onboard autopilots, which in turn were capable of controlling
all of the onboard hydraulics. In combination these multiple different
functions were now known as the "Flight Control System" or FCS, in turn
integrated with sophisticated avionics capable of automatically landing the
aircraft in zero visibility conditions. In summary, by the mid-seventies
most of the large jets were capable of effectively navigating hundreds of
miles and then making automatic landings at a selected airport in zero-zero
fog conditions. All of this could be accomplished unaided, but in theory at
least, still under the watchful eyes of the flight deck crews.
In order to make Home Run truly effective, it had to be completely
integrated with all onboard systems, and this could only be accomplished
with a new aircraft design, several of which were on the drawing boards at
that time. Under cover of extreme secrecy, the multinationals and DARPA went
ahead on this basis and built "back doors" into the new computer designs.
There were two very obvious hard requirements at this stage, the first a
primary control channel for use in taking over the flight control system and
flying the aircraft back to an airfield of choice, and secondly a covert
audio channel for monitoring flight deck conversations. Once the primary
channel was activated, all aircraft functions came under direct ground
control, permanently removing the hijackers and pilots from the control
loop.
Remember here, this was not a system designed to "undermine" the
authority of the flight crews, but was put in place as a "doomsday" device
in the event the hijackers started to shoot passengers or crew members,
possibly including the pilots. Using the perfectly reasonable assumption
that hijackers only carry a limited number of bullets, and many aircraft
nowadays carry in excess of 300 passengers, Home Run could be used to fly
all of the survivors to a friendly airport for a safe auto landing. So the
system started out in life for the very best of reasons, but finally fell
prey to security leaks, and eventually to compromised computer codes. In
light of recent high-profile CIA and FBI spying trials, these leaks and
compromised codes should come as no great surprise to anyone.
Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most
readers will have heard of a "transponder", prominent in most news reports
immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a
transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates
automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air
traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique "identity"
for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air
collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock
onto the correct aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home
Run "piggy backs" a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes
direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent
a special "I have been hijacked" transponder code, despite multiple
activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency
had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special
hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the
target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather
than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives.
The Home Run listening device on the flight deck utilizes the cockpit
microphones that normally feed the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), one of two
black boxes armored to withstand heavy impact and thereby later give
investigators significant clues to why the aircraft crashed. However, once
hooked into Home Run, the CVRs are bypassed and voice transmissions are no
longer recorded on the 30-minute endless loop recording tape. If Home Run is
active for more than thirty minutes, there will therefore be no audible data
on the Cockpit Voice Recorders. To date, crash investigators have recovered
the CVRs from the Pentagon and Pittsburg aircraft, and publicly confirmed
that both are completely blank. The only possible reason for this, is data
capture by Home Run, providing the final hard proof that the attack aircraft
were hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by "Arab
terrorists".
Many readers might by now be indignant; convinced this is incorrect or
misleading information because of "those telephone calls from the hijacked
aircraft". Which telephone calls exactly? There are no records of any such
calls, and the emotional claptrap the media fed you in the aftermath of the
attack was in all cases third-person. We had the media's invisible "contact"
at an airline who "said" a hostess called to report a hijacking, and we had
a priest (?) who "said" he received a call from a man asking him in turn to
call his wife and tell her he loved her.
Presumably this man would have had his wife's name filed in his
cellphone, and faced with imminent death would have called her direct. The
FAA helped out by claiming that it had "overheard" a heated argument from a
cockpit where the radio transmit switch had been left in the "on" position.
When push came to shove, the FAA was forced to retract, and admit that the
mythical argument was not on the tapes at all.
Critically, the passenger manifests for all four aircraft serve as the
final (independent) proof that no alleged hijackers or anyone of Arabic name
boarded any of the four aircraft used in the attacks. As Laurence T. May
points out:
"On September 11, airline check-in counters were the only places in the
United States that required travellers to present a photo ID in order to
travel. A photo ID meant (and still means) a card issued by some branch of
civil government. Years ago, the United States government took the first
step toward a national ID card when it mandated the requirement that all
passengers present a photo ID card before being allowed to get on a
commercial airplane.
"This means that the tightest security that the typical American ever
confronts is airport security. This is the model for all other security
systems governing the general public. Let's go through the check-in routine
together. Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in agent at
either a United Airlines counter or an American Airlines counter. It is your
job to ask the standard questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you
had it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a photo ID. The
name on the ID must match the name on the
ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the card." .. And, you
guessed it, the name on the ID must match that on the passenger manifest
held by the airline ground staff!
It seems highly likely that these revealing passenger manifests will
magically disappear when the American Government realizes the dangers of
allowing the public access to such incriminating documents. For that reason
I have listed the full manifests on a separate page. To visit that page and
copy the lists, click here.
Whether more information will be forthcoming about Home Run is unknown,
but nowadays there are large numbers of people apart from the author privy
to the basic data. As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag
carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its
own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority.
Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight
control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home
grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration
by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft
fleet.
A casual count indicates that more than 600 aircraft in the USA and
elsewhere are still vulnerable and could be used in further attacks at any
time, which might help explain why America has been bombing the Afghans
primarily with bags of wheat. For the first time in US history, American
officials appear to be genuinely fearful of future reprisals, and
justifiably so with 600 giant bombs parked on the wrong side of their
missile defence shield.
It is a "Catch 22" situation. In order to make all of the aircraft
safe, the flight control systems would have to be stripped out and replaced,
at a cost of billions of dollars the airlines cannot afford because they are
going broke. Nor is there enough time. The most innovative anti-hijacking
tool in the American arsenal, has now become the biggest known threat to
American national security.
For the purpose of public reassurance I would like to publish a
complete list of aircraft which cannot be affected by Home Run, but I cannot
do so for legal reasons. Any aircraft manufacturer not on the list might
feel inclined to sue me for defamation and I can't afford that. However,
there is nothing to stop me publishing my personal choice of aircraft for a
flight from, say, Atlanta to Singapore via JFK, Frankfurt, and Kuala Lumpur.
From Atlanta to JFK I would probably travel on a Boeing 737, and
connect with a Boeing 777 for the onward flight to Frankfurt. At Frankfurt
I would probably board an Airbus A340 for Kuala Lumpur, and finish the
journey on a DC9 or a Fokker 100. Naturally I might be unlucky and pick an
aircraft with an intoxicated pilot, or an unrelated mechanical problem, but
apart from those minor risks I'd feel pretty safe.

15 October 2001

After this page had been hit on by more than 10,000 curious visitors,
the current issue of "Business Week" (22Oct) decided to publish an unusual
letter, suggesting that the events of the 11th of September would have ended
rather differently if there was a capability for Ground Tower Control to
"take over the controls of a hijacked plane" (issue still available at any
US newsagent).
Remember, the American Federal Government kept Reagan National airport
in downtown Washington, DC shut, despite the fact that none of the
"hijacked" planes came from there. However, if it were possible to "take
over the controls" of a plane, then it would take less than a minute for
planes close to DCA airport to be diverted to a target anywhere in the
capital. There were just two aircraft types involved on the 11th of
September.
Eventually, after much reluctance, the government has now opened up
Reagan National airport again, but ONLY for planes with less than 156 seats.
Now what kind of planes previously operating happily out of Reagan National
will this new "seating" restriction exclude? Hint: Among a few others, the
Boeing 757 and 767.
Cynics might be tempted to conclude that, as usual, "important"
politicians and bureaucrats are being provided with discreet special
protection from Home Run, while everyday Americans are left to take their
chances as best they can, and run the continual risk of being shot down by
one of their own F16 fighters. Ignorance may be bliss for some folk, but not
for those who have studied this page and realized the implications.

18 October 2001

Suddenly, more than five weeks after the attack and for no apparent
reason, the most powerful newspaper in the western world published a major
article "reinforcing" the myth that physical hijackers were responsible for
the attacks on 11 September. No hard facts of course, no corroboration at
all, just the usual pathetic series of media "sources", all of them far too
"secret" to reveal.
Within hours of this newspaper going to press, television reporters
across the entire western world repeated the fiction to their own viewing
publics. From London in England to Sydney in Australia, everone woke to
this new "proof" that Arabs were the real culprits. Never mind public
safety, please believe what we, your trusted and experienced news peddlers,
are telling you. To read the propaganda, click here.

19 October 2001

During the past few days I have received many emails asking for a
written explanation of who was behind the attacks on 11 September, and why.
As an investigator I can prove how the attack was carried out, but I cannot
prove why or by whom. Of all the work I have seen on the Internet, the
closest to the truth is probably this imspired report called "Orient
Express" written by journalist Israel Shamir. To read "Orient Express",
click here.


25 October 2001

Though I do not agree with the financial rationale where this report
is concerned, the Colonel and his highly specialized group provide valuable
additional insights into the impossibility of "hijackers" flying the attack
aircraft on 11 September. To read "The Enemy is Inside The Gates", click
here.

20 January 2002

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th,
former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following
statement:-
"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: According to
this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands,
from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby
they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting
[automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in
this case..."
Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the
above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned
that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that
precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-
"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier
acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own
aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority.
Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight
control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home
grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration
by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft
fleet..."
The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American
flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national
airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and
Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all
about this mammoth but secretive task.
How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the [sic]

Notice the addendum from January 20. The author gives no indication that Von Buelow is actually speaking about his original article. Using this as a reference to back up the theory.

Also the author states that the flight recorders from the Pentagon and Pittsburg aircraft were blank.

Not so : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/13/usa.september11

Brown Bomber

OK. Thanks for that. So why is it so implausible in your opinion?

studiorat

A couple of reasons.
It seems technically implausible (see link above) to retro fit this into an existing plane.

The anti-hijacking software is still in development by Airbus, University of Munich, Siemens and others. Alongside Boeing there is a massive push to develop the technology in Europe.

If as the author says the technology existed already, how come we haven't seen it in any previous hijacking. In aircraft history there have been over 100 notable hijackings. Not one has shown evidence of such a system being used for it's intended purpose.

(Interestingly there have been more cases of Passengers and Cabin crew taking action themselves since 911)

An finally I don't trust the source. There's contradictions I've pointed out already as well as the author has a portfolio of dubious stories including Diana, Haarp and all the rest...

Border-Rat

"Why have hijackers on the planes at all?"

There were no hijackers on the planes on 9/11. An interview was conducted with one of the 'hijackers' fathers for crying out loud on how his son was afraid after seeing his face tied to 9/11.

studiorat

Border-Rat wrote: »

"Why have hijackers on the planes at all?"

There were no hijackers on the planes on 9/11. An interview was conducted with one of the 'hijackers' fathers for crying out loud on how his son was afraid after seeing his face tied to 9/11.

Assuming just for arguments sake there were no hijackers, why would the FBI frame people who were real, alive and most likely appear in the worlds media and blow the story?

If they wanted to create "hijackers" why didn't they just make up people out of nowhere? Why did they use real persons?

chooochooo

Bin Laden and A-Q claim responsibility for 9/11.
There is no 'vehement' denial.

Monty Burnz

Border-Rat wrote: »

"Why have hijackers on the planes at all?"

There were no hijackers on the planes on 9/11. An interview was conducted with one of the 'hijackers' fathers for crying out loud on how his son was afraid after seeing his face tied to 9/11.

You still haven't explained how the corporate heads of Lufthansa cracked the whole plot within months and withdrew all the remote-piloting equipment from their planes.

Monty Burnz

studiorat wrote: »

Assuming just for arguments sake there were no hijackers, why would the FBI frame people who were real, alive and most likely appear in the worlds media and blow the story?

If they wanted to create "hijackers" why didn't they just make up people out of nowhere? Why did they use real persons?

Uh oh. A small hole in the logic there alright.

studiorat

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Uh oh. A small hole in the logic there alright.

Not to mention why they "choose" Saudi hijackers and not Iraqi or Afghani hijackers.

They should have blamed the Taliban straight off the bat don't you think? Especially if an invasion of Afghanistan was on the cards...