Humint Events Online: The Last Second Change of Course

Saturday, June 17, 2006

The Last Second Change of Course

(update: altered and expanded slightly 3 pm Saturday)

If we assume a real plane hit the South tower, who or what was controlling it?

Here are all the theoretically possible options:

1) the official UA175 pilot under duress by a hijackers (with a last minute course change to hit the South tower by the hijacker taking over)

2) the hijacker pilot controlling UA175

3) UA175 electronically hijacked and piloted remotely by computer

4) UA175 piloting controls over-ridden by remote manual control system and piloted by human

5) a drone aircraft piloted remotely by computer

6) a drone aircraft with the controls over-ridden by remote manual control system and piloted by human

7) another aircraft (not UA175) piloted by a human pilot (either under mind-control or knowingly a kamiakze).

Finally, let's take into account that several videos of the South tower hit show the plane making a last second bank to the left (to the west), such that the plane hit the tower at a sharp banked angle. Presumably, in the absence of this bank, the plane would miss the tower or only hit the corner of it.

So, using logic, let's try to narrow down who was controlling the plane.

Since there was a last-minute course change, we can basically rule out the possibility that the plane was guided simply by a computer picking a bee-line course for the WTC. That leaves 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.


Possibility 1 -- the official UA175 pilot controlling the plane most of the way with a last minute course change to hit the South tower by the hijacker taking over seems extremely unlikely and too risky for the hijacker. So we can essentially rule that out.

Possibility 2 -- that the hijacker was controlling the plane can be ruled out by the fact that a) the hijackers simply did not have the skills to pilot a large 767 effectively, and b) the inside job scenario would not let unpredictable hijacker pilots in control of the plane

Possibility 7-- that there was another non-UA175 aircraft piloted by a human can essentially be discarded as very unlikely.

This leaves possibilities 4 and 6-- with a human piloting the plane remotely, for instance with a joystick video game-type system. We can fairly easily rule this out for UA175, as it seems highly unlikely such a video-manual over-ride system would be set-up on a commercial jet, even assuming such a system is feasible for a 767.

Possibility 6, while hard to rule out completely, is also doubtful because of the human error factor and the fact of what person would actually be willing to guide the plane in this way?

The bottom line is-- for an "inside job" scenario, computer guidance of the plane would clearly be the best way to conduct the attack.

Yet we have evidence of a last-second course change-- which doesn't fit with the computer guidance scenario. While it is surely possible that the computer guidance system could have been specifically programmed to show a last-minute course change (perhaps in order to make people think the plane was under human control), in my mind, this seems unlikely.

Interestingly though, the last second course change is not a problem if we assume the plane was only a computer image inserted into video, and that something besides a plane produced the damage to the building.

BOTTOM LINE: while not conclusive of any particular piloting scenario, the last second course change does need to be taken into account of what hit the South WTC tower on 9/11.

7 Comments:

Anonymous C said...

Assuming the footage is computer generated, why introduce a course change?

10:27 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

good question, c.

I can think of a few reasons--
1) the explosives and/or that created the plane-shaped hole for whatever reason were designed to make a diagonal cut on the bldg
2) the planners wanted to put in this course change as an illusion to make poeple think the plane was piloted by humans
3) the planners just thought it looked cool to have the plane coming in at an angle
4) the planners wanted to maximaize the impact of the plane over several floors and so made the banked plane illusion

I do think that the last second course change effectively rules out any computer guidance system. Yes, they could have theoretically program the remote control system to put in the course change-- but I suspect that would be too risky and unpredictable.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous shep said...

You can dig up a piece of this article from USA Today (10/02/2001) at http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html

"A FedEx 727 cargo plane lands using remote control technology being developed by Raytheon
BOSTON (AP) — There's little doubt that landing a plane from the ground — technology that could prevent hijackers turning a commercial jet into a weapon — could soon be feasible. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question. Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August — all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system."

So Raytheon had technology to remotely pilot a plane in August of 2001...

...and also unfortunately lost four employees on 9/11.

on UA 175:

Herbert Homer,48, of Milford, Massachusetts, worked for Raytheon Co.

on AA 11:

Peter Gay, 54, of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. vice president of operations for electronic systems based in Andover, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for more than 28 years.

David Kovalcin, 42, of Hudson, New Hampshire, was a Raytheon Co. senior mechanical engineer for electronic systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for 15 years.

Kenneth Waldie, 46, of Methuen, Massachusetts, was a Raytheon Co. senior quality control engineer for electronic systems in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. He had worked for Raytheon for 17 years.

Something to consider, but anyway...

Yet we have evidence of a last-minute course change-- which doesn't fit with the computer guidance scenario. While it is possible that the computer guidance system could have been specifically programmed to show a last-minute course change (perhaps in order to make people think the plane was under human control), in my mind, this seems unlikely.

Maybe. But it certainly seems possible that someone would program in a last minute course change - it creates a dramatic effect and gives the appearance of a suicide plummet into the tower. If the plane shot straight in from a long way out on a nice smooth control controlled entry, would it seem like the plane was being piloted by a hijacker? If the plane dives down from the sky, and pulls up and impacts the towers, would it seem like the plane was being piloted by a hijacker? I think computer control and guidance of the plane would be the easiest way to guarantee success and this could be accomplished by remote hijacking and a drone decoy plane. Regardless, you do have to ask yourself that if a remote drone plane was in fact used, what benefit did that give the culprits? Why use a plane when you could bombs instead? If you're going to consider a drone plane, you have to consider that this is a fair amount of additional trouble for the culprits. Land a plane, and send up a decoy to fly into the tower? Or plant bombs in the tower and then saturate the MSM with videos of a plane impacting the towers? Which has a higher probability of success?

12:52 PM  
Anonymous james ha said...

regardless of the left banking at the last moment and the conflicting flight paths in the various approach vids, at several points in the clips of the actual impact one can see the wall of the tower (and other buildings) thru the wing of the plane as if the plane was insubstantial.

12:56 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

great points, Shep. I agree with your analysis.

Basically, I wrote this up because I thought maybe it might be some evidence for video fakery (I think it is)-- but the situation is not so clear-cut. You're absolutely right that having a plane zoom straight into the tower would look suspicious, if it was done by remote control, and they might want to program in some last second maneuver. I guess the key quesiton is: how easy would it be to do that by computer guidance? I'm sure it is feasible, but as you say, how easy compared to bombs and video fakery?

3:11 PM  
Blogger WRH said...

The 757/767 control is not electric, but mechanical, i.e. hydraulic. The person doing the RC would need to have a feed of the plane, and installing the requisite items would be too conspicuous. The Predator system also has latency, which is too much of a risk. Now, people propose a preplanned flight path but that would be difficult when going 550 mph at low altitude! Pilots can always override the technology. Andreas von Bulow, who is often deceptively quoted by 9/11 conspiracists like so many other people, does not actually subscribe to the home-run theory.

11:55 PM  
Blogger WRH said...

The hijackers were perfectly capable of hitting the targets. See
*http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml
*http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/ (inc. quotes from several experienced pilots)
*http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html*
*http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-241.html
*http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html
*http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html
*http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html

12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger