Two Arguments for Remote-Control of the 9/11 Planes

At this point, the evidence strongly suggests that the 9/11 attack was a covert operation planned and performed by the US government with the aid of foreign hijackers.

However, if you were a planner of this operation, would you entrust the success of the operation to the ability of these hijackers to commit suicide by crashing the planes into buildings?

I think not.

This means you would have another system to ensure the planes got to their targets.

It certainly is not feasible that an American on board would commit this act.

This leaves only outside control of the planes-- remote-control .

An even stronger argument for remote-control of the 9/11 planes just came to me as I was reading this article by Dave McGowan.

Basically, McGowan describes how the original intent of the 9/11 attacks was likely to have all four planes impact their targets in New York City and in Washington DC at roughly the same time. Indeed, all four planes were supposed to take off at very similar times, around 8 am. Had all four flights taken off on time, the 9/11 attacks likely would have been extremely devastating to Washington DC as well as New York. Moreover, what McGowan points out is that this would have provided a perfect excuse for the lack of air defenses-- if the Pentagon and the White House (or Capitol) had been hit around the same time as the WTC.

What screwed this all up was the delay of flight 93 from Newark. Flight 93 left 41 minutes late, and therefore screwed up the timing of the DC attack completely. (This is the first time I have ever thanked god for Newark).

The reason to think flights 77 and 93 were supposed to coordinate their attacks on DC is the known flight path of flight 77. Initially, right after crossing into West Virginia, flight 77 makes an abrupt turn off course as if starting to go back towards DC. However, oddly, flight 77 then turns back south and resumes its normal flight path.

The interpretation of this odd course deviation is that flight 77 initially was supposed to turn back to DC at a pre-planned time that would coincide with the arrival of flight 93 in DC. What it looks like is that flight 77 realized flight 93 was delayed, and then turned back to its original course to stall for time while flight 93 caught up.

(The alternative explanation that the hijackers took over and initially altered the course of flight 77, then the normal pilots took back control from the hijackers, resuming the normal course, and then the hijackers once more gained control of the aircraft for the final turn back to DC, is really too ridiculous to consider seriously).

So what does all this have to do with remote control of the 9/11 airplanes?

Well, the thing that struck me is-- how on earth would the hijackers know what was going on with flight 93?

First off, isn't it most likely that the hijackers on flight 77 just assumed that flight 93 took off on time? Isn't it most likely that terrorist hijackers would simply fly to their target in order to inflict the most damage? Is it really reasonable to assume that the hijackers of flight 77 and flight 93 were coordinating their attacks so tightly?

The way that flight 77 starts to turn up and then turns back suggests a major rethinking of the plan. Would the terrorists really have had such a big change of heart knowing flight 93 was delayed?

Additionally, the theroretical reason to coordinate the attacks on New York and DC is to provide an excuse for why air defenses failed. This is the government's alibi, remember. From the point of view of the terrorists-- they would expect some sort of air defenses to be deployed, wouldn't they? Therefore wouldn't they simply hurry to their targets as quickly as possible?

Moreover, how could the hijackers even have been monitoring flight 93? I don't see that they would have access to ATC discussions of flight 93. I certainly don't think they asked ATC what the status was of flight 93-- that would be a dead give-away. And I think it is almost technically impossible that the hijackers could have communicated each other while flying via cell phone.**

This leaves the idea that the planes were controlled remotely, and the controller was informed of what was happening with flight 93 and adjusted the flight path of flight 77 accordingly.****

Granted, this argument is hardly air-tight. But I believe it is the best evidence yet that there was some sort of external control on the 9/11 planes.

An extremely interesting question is what was the original intent of the 9/11 planners? Was it to disable the US government, leving the president and the military in control? Interestingly, Dan Hopsicker (in "Welcome to Terrorland") notes there was a plan to assassinate George W. Bush on the morning of 9/11, which failed. The plan was supposedly coordinated by Mohamed Atta, and supposedly he arranged a group of Sudanese men to pose as journalists, to interview Bush on the morning of 9/11. He speculates that the plan was similar to the one that was used to kill the leader of the Northern Alliance on Septmeber 10th-- the journalists would get close to Bush then detonate a bomb hidden in a camera.

So perhaps the grand plan was to take out Bush, and Congress, and make a damaging but not devastating hit on the Pentagon. That would leave Cheney in charge. Interestingly, Mike Ruppert names Cheney as the coordinator of the 9/11 attacks, which fits this idea of a coup d'etat.

Conceivably after the hit on Bush failed, and after flight 93 was delayed, the plan was scaled down to the contours of what finally happened, except there was the little matter of the guys in the Pentagon running some of the wargame show. They had to be taken out, and this is why the Pentagon hit was allowed to continue.

**Conceivably, the hijackers were flying at a relatively low altitude specifically in order to allow their cell phones to work. This could also explain why the passengers' cell phones worked as well. However, I still think that the speeds of both airplanes would have made any plane-to-plane cell phone calling very problematic. Alternatively, the hijackers could have had associates on the ground to relay the info about flight 93 to them in the air. This of course makes the plot quite a bit bigger. Conceivably also, the hijackers could have called United Airlines departure information to find out what was happening with flight 93. However, this also seems unlikely to me. Really though, the key question is: why wouldn't hijackers simply speed to their targets? Why wouldn't they worry about air defenses catching up to them?

****A related point is what truly happened to flight 77, since its return path to DC is not known for sure. One possibility is that it was also shot down (somewhere in WV) like flight 93, and that there was a back-up plane that was used to atttack the Pentagon. Along these lines, we can't rule out that there was a second flight 11 (the one that seemed to continue on radar after the WTC hit) and that this plane was what really hit the Pentagon.