If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact

Remote recovery - Daily Mail article

  • 03-09-2012 3:49pm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 921 ✭✭✭

    A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages.
    The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets - and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.


    A misleading article. This technology existed before 9/11. Former German secretary of defense, Von Buelow, mentioned this theory in passing in a January, 2002 interview;

    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.

    As I see it, the planes were hijacked, but not in the way presented by the plutocrats/zionists. You can see in the diagram that it can be remotely landed to an air-lane, or for mendacious intent - guided to a civilian target. As confirmed, the pilot cannot interrupt this procedure. They were hijacked remotely and, for all intents and purposes, turned into large cruise missiles. There was nothing the pilots could do. This technology also allows to cut off outgoing comms from the cockpit. The third plane hit the Pentagon. Disinfo on it missing its target has deliberately been placed. The fourth plane would be destined for WTC-7, which would implode later in the day, the reasoning being structural failure as a result of the impact. However, this plane was shot down (Remember the pilot cannot respond to the attack fighter). The building had to be imploded regardless, it was rigged with explosives (I.e. evidence). Its also a striking coincidence that the North and South tower planes both hit distinct computer rooms (These are on re-enforced floors due to the added weight of equipment, especially batteries).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash

    Have you got a link to the Van Buelow interview

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash

    Well I did a bit of googling and found the article in question

    Heres the actual transcript of the interview(well the important bit)
    Von Buelow:
    [/FONT] --like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names. They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed. Clues were left like behind like in a child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!

    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. That's a theory....
    [/FONT] Which sounds really adventurous, and was never considered.
    Von Buelow:
    [/FONT] You see! I do not accept this theory, but I find it worth considering. And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200%. It was for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have known something. Who?
    So he didn't put forward the claim nor does he think its a viable option but he considers it.Not exactly how it was put in the OP

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash

    Also in that article he says that the Hijackers dont appear on the passenger list.

    He is very much mistaken in that claim and to be honest if he's slipping up on details like that I wouldn't really hold out much hope for him holding the key to unravelling this mystery