Great work.

I have been a "remote controller" since day 1. To me it is inconceivable that the planners of The Big Wedding would leave the most critical phase of the overall operation--that those aircraft hit their targets accurately and on time, to an incompetent patsy like Hani Hanjour. That simply would not be permitted. You want those aircraft flown with the highest level of precision possible with existing technology. A drug-addled loser basket-case like Hanjour would not have been let anywhere near the controls of that aircraft. Having said that...I still think the wrong tower was hit first. But thats a whole other matter.

KMW

It seems to me that Aidan, through his continuous research and ensuing presentations is inching us closer and closer to understanding both how such precise flying could have been executed by "someone on board", or his second possible point...by "someone NOT on board".

This is, as usual, extraordinary work on Aidan's part and I feel that he has drawn no conclusions about what has happened.

Perhaps I'm misreading Aidan's latest here, but to me, he has only made the points that extremely precise navigation systems, and their integration with on-board "flight management-auto pilot-flight director" systems were available on 9/11/2001 and that...

...there were ground based capabilities that could, through either FAA channels or airline company channels, transmit updated or altered routes to individual airliners already airbourne at the time, and further that...

.,..these instructions could direct, instruct or be on the ready for the on-board flight management systems provided by Boeing and various avionic manufacturers to update or replace existing routing already entered into the flight management systems which could "reroute" the airliner along a path chosen by someone on the ground and not the pilot.

I am not sure if Aidan is stating that this capability, other than being able to transmit new routing to airbourne airliners from the ground, would, without approvals by the captains of the said airliners, take over "command or control" of the routing of any specific airliner...but that...

...the capacities to circumvent the captain's "command and control" responsibilities may have indeed been in place to do so.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

I think that such capabilities in B757 and B767 airliners have been exposed before in that there were some similar ground based flight management system control capabilities built into these Boeings as standard elements of these airliners. If I remember correctly, a few European airlines removed, or had Boeing remove such capabilities in the B757 and B767 aircraft that they purchased.

Again, please correct me if I'm off base here, but Aidan seems to be refining our knowledge of such systems and informing us that some of the ground based and onboard apparatus needed to operate this network of the rerouting of airbourne airliners was in place in some forms anyway.

Presuming that my conclusions above are correct, and even if not correct, I have a few questions and points that I have concerns about:

1. It is my understanding that:

...the captains of any and all aircraft have final say and full authority and responsibility for all aspects of the flight of their aircraft from push-back to disembarkment at the destination and that this includes selecting, approving and acuating any and all routings that meet his or her approval, and further that...

...regardless of the source of such routing, be it the original flight plan routing filed into the FAA computer systems by the airline, or the flight crew, or, be it routing assigned by Air Traffic Control, that such changes MUST be accepted by the captain before any modifications to the route are actuated.

From my Air Traffic Control and piloting views, even if the FAA's Air Traffic Controllers directly instruct an aircraft to make flight path adjustments of speed, altitude or routings, such instructions must FIRST be accepted by the captain before they are actuated because he or she must maintain the safety of their aircraft, and further that...

...if ANY instruction by Air Traffic Control puts the aircraft in jeopardy, or near an unsafe condition, the captain has responsibility to override such instructions to keep the aircraft flying or taxiing safely. In such cases alternative instructions would be requested until suitable flight path modifications to the specific aircraft would be accepted by the captain and thusly, agreed upon by all parties concerned.

My point is that the captain of an aircraft has final authority for operating that aircraft and that, at least from what I still understand, no other outside influence or entity has been given the authority to override the captains role of being responsible for ALL aspects of flight of his or her aircraft.

This does not mean that the technical capabilities for such "overriding" of the captains command and control of his or her aircraft might not have existed on 9/11/2001.

The question that is begged here is: "Were all four airliners remotely controlled from the ground on 9/11/2001?" And its a very good question because as Aidan has taught us all:

...the FAA's navigational capabilities for such accurate flight existed on 9/11/2001, and further that...

...the onboard flight director-autopilot-flight management systems were capable of automatically flying any programmed routing and speed and altitudes input into the above mentioned flight control systems, and further that...

...it appears that there was in place on 9/11/2001, a ground based communications system regarding the modification of an airliner's routing or perhaps other flight profile modifications that could possibly be used to by-pass the command and control of the captain's authority and responsibility for that aircraft's flight.

So, whether this happened or not is still an ongoing search for facts supporting or detracting from this possibility.

One element of such a remote controlled "by-pass" of the captain's command and control responsibilities that needs to be reminded is that if such "remote control" did indeed take place, all on board communications systems available to pilots and other crew members would also have to have been inhibited because...

...the pilots would be very, very unhappy campers if dsomebody else began to fly their aircraft in spite of their own commands and controls of the aircraft, and further that...

...clearly the pilots would use any and all means of external communications to make loud complaint about loosing such command and control and would undoubtedly ask anyone who would listen what was going on and how could they regain control of their aircraft.

In other words, the pilots would not go down quietly, or without doing everything imaginable and in theor powers to regain control of their aircraft...and they would give whomever might be listening a blow-by-blow description of their travails all the way to impact.

Sobering stuff here, but its a truth taht needs to be considered by all...and of course, no such complaints were ever heard from the pilots of any of the airliners in question.

Another point in need of reminder:

Just because there were some radio transmissions with odd sounding accents and odd sounding communications seemingly directed towards the passengers on board the airliners about bombs and remaining in seat and returning to the airport etc., does NOT mean that such radio transmissions came from the specific airliners in question. The place of origin of such radio transmissions is IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE and the facts are that any aircraft, or airbourmne command, control and communications center such as an E4B that was aloft within a hundred miles or so of NYC could have easily made such rado transmissions.

It is no more than presumption or an educated GUESS that these radio transmissions came from the specific airliners in question.

So, IF command and control of the airliners was taken over by some remote control apparatus, AND, the onboard communications systems were inhibited, there IS another source for the radio transmissions that we are all familiar with.

Additionally, regarding the War Games taking place in the northeast section of the USofA on 9/11/2001, there was an ALTRV in place in some of the airspace over parts of the northeast on 9/11/2001. So, this military "playground in the sky" could have secretively contained any number of aircraft serving a variety of purposes in participating in, or being part of, or overseeing/monitoring of the War Game activities on 9/11/2001.

And ALTRV is an "ALT itude R eser V ation" approved by the FAA for whatever use the Military may have for the airspace in question...it works like this:

If the Military has War Games planned for a particular region and time period, it has a need to SECRETLY fly some of its aviation assets to and from the "hot areas of attack-defense-or discovery" built into the various War Games Scenarios.

In order to keep the War Games legitimately a "surprise" for the various attack-defender elements, the military aviation assets MUST NOT be tracked by the FAA's Air Traffic Control systems because an alert NORAD tech could tip off one of the War Games units involved in the excercises.

The problem is that the Military bases from which and to which participating Military aviation assets must depart from and eventually return to, are often in and around busy civilian air corridors and the FAA MUST be in control of the Military aviation assets in order to "weave them" up and away into the War Games regions. So there is a problem...how to do both.

An ALTRV is an altitude block of airspace over an ENTIRE REGION [or specific parts of a region] and NOT just some specific Jet Airways [J-routes] used by FAA controlled aircraft...and...the ALTRV, in addition to having a wide swath of geographic area, has full use of a VERTICAL block of airpace within that specific geographical area. A typical ALTRV altitude block would be from Flight Level 310 to Flight level 490...or...FL310-FL490...or...from 31,000 feet to 49,000 feet.

The ONLY aircraft allowed within this airspace are Military assets which have an IFF or military transponder which the FAA radar systems cannot see, or are inhinited from seeing. This allows for the required secrecy needed to operate War Games.

Hopefully I have described the ALTRV...aka...a "Military Playground in the Skies" well enough so that you all can see that an ALTRV essentially "takes back" a vast region and altitude block of airspace from the FAA and it does whatever it wants with whatever Military aviation assets that it desires to use such a playground.

All civilian aircraft wishing to operate in the ALTRV regions within the ALTRV altitude blocks are NOT ALLOWED to use this airspace and are kept below the ALTRV or are routed around or beyond the geographical boundaries of the ALTRV.

So, here is how it works:

...a military asset departs a Military base and is under FAA aAir Traffic Control procedures...

...the simplified route of this flight ends, [or is interrupted] at a pre-arranged geographical point within the ALTRV geographical boundaries...

...the Military aviation asset is worked through civilian aircraft as a normal flight but is kept BELOW the bottom altitude of the ALTRV...in this case the ALTRV bottom level is FL310 so the Military aviation asset is climbed only to FL290 which is safely BELOW the ALTRV...

...as the Military aviation asset approaches the predetermined geographical point within the ALTRV, the FAA Air Traffic Controllers reach out to the appropraite NORAD facility and more specifiaclly, the particular sector or radar tech position within the NORAD facility, and begins to "hand-off" or identify this Military Aviation asset to that person in the NORAD facility...

[FYI...the Military aviation asset has both an FAA transponder and an IFF or Military transponder that are "squawking" or transmitting specifically assigned codes. This allows NORAD, who can see BOTH transponder codes, to "see" the Military asset. However, again, the FAA radar does NOT see this military IFF [Identification-Friend or Foe] transponder code. ]

...once the hand-off and military radio frequency change have been accomplished, the NORAD facility climbs the Military aviation asset up above FL290 and into the ALTRV block of airspace between FL310-FL490 in this example...

...and, once at or above FL310, the Military aviation asset TURNS OFF the FAA transponder and drops from the sight of all FAA radars...so it appears to the FAA's ATCs that the target basically "dissappears...

...from this point on, and up until there is a return to base, ALL the Military aviation assests are operating undetected by the FAA but seen by the appropriate NORAD sectrors designed within the specific War Game or War Games...

...so they can play in their "airspace playground" in any way that they need to beacuse the only aircraft within the ALTRV are Military assets...and the FAA has not a single clue as to who is where, what types of Military assets are operating within the ALTRV...nor what types of routings are being flown by the Military aviation assets...

Recovery, or return to base, of Military assets operates in the eaxct opposite steps as noted above. And when the Military aviation asset returns to base and begins to be handed-off to the pre-arranged FAA Air Traffic Control sector controller, the NORAD sector radar tech has the Military aviation asset squawk the specific pre-coordibnated transponder code on its FAA transponder and subsequently, the Military aviation assets "pops up" on the FAA radar scopes...the hand-off is completed...and the FAA ATC descends theMilitary asset down below the ALTRV.

In conclusion about ALTRVs...

Hopefully you all can see that if there is a War Game activity taking place in the upper midwest, and Military aviation assets are needed to play the War Games, the Military aviation assets are all eventually worked into the ALTRVs set up where needed across the country...and conversely, worked back out of the ALTRVs on their return to base.

In conclusion about the radio transmissions that are "alleged" to have been made by occupants in the afflicted airliners...the radio transmisssions could have come from any Military aviation asset operating anywhere within the ALTRV that was in place over parts of the northeast on 9/11/2001.

So, if there was a: "9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario" as I feel comfortable in so identifying...[one that Cheney was most likely a player in]...one element of such a scenario could be the radio transmissions that are PRESUMED to be from the airliners in question, they easily could have come from any Military aviation assets operating in the ALTRV in place over large parts of the northeast on 9/11...piece of Miltary War Games Cake...normal War Game ops...part of all War Games "hijacking scenarios"...done all the time...completely normal...not out of the ordinary...expected actions by War Game techs...normal day at NORAD...innocent looking compartmentalization of actions on a terrible day...

I've dumped too much stuff here to go back and check my grammar and spelling...so please deal with it...you should get the drift here.

And the BIG DRIFT is that Aidan is doing great work in discovery and education about the four flights on 9/11.

thanks Aidan...

love, peace and progress...

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

...