>> If all four 9/11 aircraft were retrofitted with remote flight capability, this means that those four aircraft were not the aircraft we were told they were. Why? Because the perpetrators would want aircraft only they could remote pilot. If the four 9/11 aircraft were capable of being remote piloted, then the remote function could be overridden from another source.

You assume that they couldn't eliminate the possibility of manual override. If they're installing a remote piloting system for the purpose of guiding them into their targets there no reason why they couldn't make the override impossible.

>> This also raises the question: What aircraft did the passengers actually board?

Fail to see where you are going with this. Please elaborate.

Since it would be the airlines who would have retrofitted the aircraft, then override would be a concern of the perpetrators of the attacks, including the possibility of override from United Airlines' Special Operations Center, located at UA's operations base in Elk Grove, Illinois (I don't know what the setup for American Airlines was).

Now unlike the USSR, American commercial aircraft are not a part of the United States Air Force. Commercial airline companies are non-governmental enterprises, therefore remote guidance devices are installed by the airline in question, not the government.

If the four 9/11 aircraft were specialized aircraft manufactured/military retrofits, then they did not take off from Dulles, Logan or Newark. Therefore we ask the question: Onto what aircraft did the passengers get on on the morning of 9/11?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any remote control installed by covert operatives would grant access to anybody other than those covert operatives.

Security for such remote control by means of authentication and encryption is easily accomplished, just like communication with military satellites.

The fact that remote flight plan altering technology was available before 2001 only serves to underscore the feasibility of remote control, not to outline any exact scenario.

My last comment fits in rather nicely for me. Why? Because I was informed that Flight 93 did actually land at Cleveland Airport on the morning of 9/11, only that its flight number wasn't Flight 93 when it was in flight heading towards Cleveland. That is why when the passengers exited the aircraft, they never said they were on Flight 93. It was redesigned Flight 93 later. This is where the infamous AP article comes into play. Just as BBC reporter Jane Standley goofed by announcing the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed, AP also goofed by announcing that Flight 93 had landed! As they say, Best Laid Plans......

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Flight 93 was either or shot out of the sky on the orders of Dick Cheney or it was shot out of the sky by elements of the military disobeying further stand down orders from Cheney's parallel command structure.

I'm not entirely rejecting any Northwoods scenario (especially not for AA 77), but this is my current working theory.

snowcrash, the same person who told me that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland also said it was shot out of the sky, so we're on the same page there!

Of course, with Flight 93 landing at Cleveland (and much, much earlier than the landing at Cleveland of Delta 1989 at 10:10 AM), that means those passengers that were supposed to board Flight 93 at Newark didn't! The question therefore is: What aircraft did those passengers board?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20907

Is there a time for the Flight 93/Camp David crash report, Joe?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

SnowCrash, tell us how covert operatives sneaked into the maintenance facilities for American Airlines and United Airlines and retrofitted the four 9/11 aircraft without being noticed?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

You make it sound like it's hard. We had an investigative reporter here in the Netherlands gain access to the hangar where the Queen's plane resides, with a hidden camera on him. The laxness of the security was a big national scandal. He even managed to smuggle a mock bomb into Schiphol and onto an airliner bound for Cairo.

If it's that easy for a reporter to get to the Queen's plane, how easy would it have been for the government? WTC 7, spook HQ, was rigged for destruction. Highly sophisticated military energetic material was discovered in WTC dust, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that WTC 1 & 2's security was subverted. Also don't forget about this:

Other Contracts - Another of Stratesec’s biggest security contracts, between 1995 and 1998, is with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, providing electronic security for Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport. Its work includes maintaining the airfield access systems, the CCTV (closed circuit television) systems, and the electronic badging systems. American Airlines Flight 77—one of the planes hijacked on 9/11—takes off from Dulles.

I wonder about this though: was there any large scale retrofit of 767's as suggested in this article? Perhaps all that is required is installing a back door similar to what the Mossad did to FBI phone tapping systems. Remember: Raytheon's involved...

SnowCrash, certainly one can penetrate even high security areas and reprogram an aircraft’s NAV computer system. The problem still exists for the perpetrators, however. An aircraft's NAV computer can be re-reprogrammed!

The bastards who carried out 9/11 would need aircraft they could count on 100%. They would have to tear out the NAV hardware and replace it with hardware they could count on when the aircraft were in flight. And even then the bastards couldn't count on those surreptitiously retrofitted aircraft. Why? Because the retrofit might be spotted by an electrician doing repairs, the pilot/co-pilot notices something odd, or the aircraft has mechanical problems and is taken out of service!

The bastards would have to take into consideration a worse case scenario where surreptitiously retrofitted aircraft are Out of Service!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I agree. Especially with the unforeseen circumstances part. This has the potential to invalidate the entire remote control hypothesis, or at least make it unlikely, imho.

The maintenance logs would be interesting. Don't think we'll ever see them.

SnowCrash, even if all commercial aircraft were retrofitted with remote control capability, the bastards wouldn't have used commercial aircraft. The bastards would have used aircraft they could count on 100%...theirs!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

SnowCrash, the reason there is no CCTV of the 19 hijackers at Dulles, Logan and Newark, and no media interviews with airport personnel describing their impressions of the 19 hijackers, is because the 19 hijackers weren't at the airports, and the aircraft that crashed into the towers were not commercial aircraft.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

First: I've seen an interview with a airport ticket counter clerk describing his impression of Atta c.s. (The usual: "cold stare", unfriendly, etc. etc.) Which airport, I don't know.

I'd have to look it up, but I really don't know which OCT documentary it was. I haven't catalogued this stuff yet... :-( Maybe it's on History Commons as well.

Second, there is no evidence that any of the aircraft were anything other than commercial aircraft. The "pod" is only weakly supported, besides the vertical stabilizers seen in the picture from below didn't match the plane you hypothesized it might have been. (From what I remember from an earlier discussion we had, where me and you posted some photos)

.....To add: the body of a flight attendant was found in the rubble of the WTC, cuffed with plastic handcuffs....

If I were a planner on the inside, I'd prefer LIHOP, but since they decided to force what 767's couldn't accomplish, namely completely destroying the two towers, they would probably want to have some control over the planes. I'm also not ruling out that some of the hijackers were double agents participating in what they thought was a war game scenario. Maybe I'll have to concede one day that all of that was just a paranoid fantasy, since I simply don't have any hard evidence for it. All we know is that Ali Mohamed, Al Qaeda's tactical officer, was a triple agent.....that there were probably links to Al Qaeda up to 9/11 (Sibel Edmunds, Chossudovsky, etc.) and that Able Danger tracked these guys closely.

"I've seen an interview with a airport ticket counter clerk describing his impression of Atta c.s. (The usual: "cold stare", unfriendly, etc. etc.) Which airport, I don't know."

SnowCrash, the ticket guy is Michael Tuohey and he worked at the Portland Maine Airport. His video testimony is, of all places [;-)], on the "Inside 911" website of National Geographic.

SnowCrash, that was at Portland, Maine's International Jetport, where Atta boards a 6 am flight so he can catch Flight 11 (the aircraft he is supposedly to pilot into WTC 1), which is scheduled to depart Newark at 8 am! This is so ludicrus, I don't know why Bush and Cheney aren't making little rocks out of big rocks at San Quentin!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

First Atta's bag with all the incriminating information was reportedly found in the Nissan Altima at the airport in Portland, ME. Then reports stated that Atta's luggage was found in the Mitsubishi left at Logan Airport. Then finally it was in the bag that didn't get successfully boarded onto the plane. This contained the list of the 19 hijackers that still to this day make up the official story. The 19 hijackers who may or may not have been on airline passenger lists and who may or may not have been part of the plot. 3 contradictory accounts for the Rosetta Stone that doesn't make the flight..... and a 20th hijacker who was reported some 70 times by Agents, but was nevertheless shielded from arrest, to provide further "evidence" when his computer and documents were seized after-the-fact. Hollywood? Would you tell this story?

for the clarification, 911Peacenik... I guess this witness is meaningless, we need witnesses from Boston Logan. Are there any?

The Washington Post cites the 9/11 commission, which we all know is meaningless. Who is the actual person that "observed" the hijackers "asking for directions"?

Upon arrival at Logan, Atta and Alomari had to go through security a second time, which is usually unnecessary for connecting flights at most U.S. airports. Because of the way the Boston airport is configured, the hijackers arrived at Gate 9 in Terminal B but needed to cross a parking lot and were observed asking for directions to the gate where they boarded American Flight 11, according to the report.

...And where is the personnel at Boston Logan that saw them check in and board? I'm sure the names are a matter of public record?

"And where is the personnel at Boston Logan that saw them check in and board? I'm sure the names are a matter of public record?"

I've already tried to find this answer and strangely enough can't.
But here are some interesting details....

He was not running late to his connecting flight (flight 11), in fact witnesses report him hanging out at the coffee shop...

"3396 "Eyewitness sighting of Mohamed Atta at Coffee shop by American Airlines Gate at Logan Airport"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/fbi911timeline3.pdf

His bags according to this article are the only ones not loaded.....

"As it happens, Atta was the only passenger among the 81 aboard American Flight 11 whose luggage didn't make the flight, American sources confirm."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28904

He was flagged by CAPPS (Computer Assisted pre passenger screening)and guess what happens when you are flagged?......

"Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

But the 9/11 commission pretends that only applied at Portland where he was flagged but according to regulations his connecting flight applied just as much if not more....

"The FAA has determined that this proposed
requirement is necessary to prevent explosive devices concealed in
checked baggage transferred from earlier flights from being introduced into the holds of airplanes."
http://epic.org/privacy/faa/profile_NPRM.html

He had to get a boarding pass from the ticket agent in Boston because the one in Portland didn't give him one.....

"Michael Tuohey said...."I worked for US Airways, not American. So I just gave them a boarding pass from here to Boston."
http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent

Everyone knows this ticket agents name Michael Tuohey(the Portland agent)...why not the one who can confirm Atta got on board in Boston?

"The same as CNN, Good Morning America, a National Geographic documentary crew, and Oprah. They all came calling after his name appeared in declassified documents following the release of The 9/11 Commission Report."
http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent

According to him, she "killed herself" ......
"Oprah Winfrey, with Tuohey as her studio guest, told 20 million viewers that a woman who'd worked at American Airlines in Boston had later killed herself. Earlier, Oprah's producer had told Tuohey she had a message from the woman's husband: "It's not your fault."
http://www.yankeemagazine.com/issues/2006-09/features/ticketagent

According to AA spokeman that isn't true....
"ABCs Nightline called today asking about a rumor that an American Airlines agent in Boston had checked in Mohamed Atta and then killed herself later out of guilt........
However, I can tell you that the American Airlines agent who checked in Mohamed Atta is alive.
Tim Wagner
Spokesman
American Airlines"
http://www.blogpi.net/myth-busted-oprah-winfrey-and-the-911-ticket-agent...

But their name is a secret. I've never found it.

In other words, we have to take as faith that Atta was at Logan Airport, for we have zero names of witnesses whom we are told saw him there!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

SnowCrash, elements in our government certainly were tracking the upcoming 9/11 attacks. What they were tracking, however, was an American operation!

Sibel Edmonds recounts listening to one of our agent's intercepts from Iran who by April 1, 2001 affirmed all the major points of the 9/11 attacks (targets, use of aircraft, general time period for attacks, etc.).

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

This is a possibility. But many foreign players including foreign intelligence services were involved, so I wouldn't call it exclusively "American".

I do believe that some if not most of the hijackers were real terrorists with real assignments, but ended up being patsies. In the same vein, I don't believe LHO was innocent either, but his function was peripheral, not central. This just in..

I think this is a good example of this game of puppets and puppeteers, terrorists and their financiers.

SnowCrash says, ".....To add: the body of a flight attendant was found in the rubble of the WTC, cuffed with plastic handcuffs...."

Ever hear of planted evidence? Interesting that that flight attendant's body was intact and not atomized as most bodies were!

As for the pictures of Flight 175's underside, well, let's forget the Pod and the other underbelly anomalies I pointed to. What are those two dark round areas doing under the tail section? To me they again suggest an Air Force fuel tanker. The smaller dark round area is the bubble window the refueling operator looks out of, while the larger dark round area is where the refueling boom extends from:

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/rebuttals.html

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Shows a plane strikingly similar to a United Airlines aircraft. I've uploaded it to my photobucket account. Theoretically, it could be painted substitute, but I'm going to go with Occam's Razor here and say this is UA 175, possibly remotely controlled to assure perfect final approach in its final moments.

Achimspok is the up and coming genius of 9/11 research: (Ignore the spelling errors, Achimspok is German, English is not his native language)

See his video:

And read the discussion.

NIST may have been caught lying again.

SnowCrash, I'm only interested in those two round holes under the tail of Flight 175. Commercial airliners don't have them.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

(Click to open enlarged version)