Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[John Geraghty]

"To come up with a theory to explain "toasted vehicles" at the WTC we need to have a solution that explains the cause of the damage found with these vehicles."

This line says it all. It is the formulation of theories and misguided speculation, not a following of the evdence or use of legitiamte logic.

John

[Kevin M. West]

Wow, that guy draws some amazing conclusions from a couple pics of burnt cars. He's wrong of course.

For example where he claims the van partially shielded the truck, it's clear that neither of those vehicles was damaged in the location they were photographed, but were moved there afterwards.

Or the car with it's engine bay on fire, where the fire stops just short of the front door. The undamaged front tire is clear evidence that this fire just started, and what a coincidence, the spot where it stopped spreading is the engine firewall. My guess is the hot engine parked on the piles of paper was a bad combination.

Or the firetruck where he leaps to the conclusion that the mirror and window frames were warped by a massive EMP, ignoring the more obvious reason that the front end of the truck was hit by debris.

Also, minor nitpick, a gigawatt is a thousand million watts, not a million million watts, but that doesn't matter since he's shown no proof of even a single watt of EMP.

So I guess you're right Jack, Judy is not alone, there are other people out there who draw illogical conclusions without really thinking it through.

[John Geraghty]

Myself and John Judge went to an impeachement meeting of worldcantwait.org last night. Rep's Maxine Waters, Lynn Wolsey and Barbara Lee attended and spoke in support of impeachment.

Indeed John and Mike Zmolek wrote some articles for Kucinich a few months ago.

I'm supporting Kucinich in whatever way I can at the moment.

I really need to catch up on my 911 reading.

John

[David G. Healy]

Check this new article:

http://www.rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

Well, well, well my old nemesis Jack White.

I'm curious, Jack. Is there ANY bizarre conspiracy theory that you DON'T believe?

stay on topic... or start your own thread...

[Guest David Guyatt]

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions. On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls? How did they get access to the secret codes?

But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

Let me quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

The following information was added to the Vialls web site, January 20, 2002:

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-

"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..."

Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-

"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!

Finally, in February 2002, Vialls provided the following:

There have also been claims that I have refused to reveal “sources” or “proof” of the classified Home Run system, which is not true. In my first report I carefully stated that “two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft.” This should have acted like a homing beacon for any serious researcher. DARPA has a web site that can be accessed by anyone on the Internet, and within that web site is a search engine. A judicious advanced search of the DARPA web site should yield, as they say, “something of interest”.

Finally, there is former German Defense Minister Andreas Von Buelow, who is frequently available for questions at meetings around Germany. Because of national security Von Buelow is most unlikely to comment directly, but he might respond to the following question: “Can you deny that during the mid-nineties, Lufthansa removed and replaced the flight control computers on certain American aircraft in its fleet for security reasons?”

Now, I have no inside knowledge, but as an engineer, Vialls' story rings true. I believe that "hijack recovery" would have been a very obvious feature to incorporate into a computerized aircraft control system, and also that European customers of Boeing aircraft would find this a very troublesome and controversial feature.

On the other hand, Joe Vialls goes on to make some very absurd claims about this "Home Run" system. For example, that the system would require the Cockpit Voice Recorder to go blank. What kind of idiotic engineering team would design a system that would require the voice recorder go silent during the critical moments following a hijack attempt?

Furthermore, the idea that it would be necessary to "remove and replace the flight computers" doesn't make sense. Why not just change the software? One could imagine that the Americans could encrypt and encapsulate the computer so thoroughly that it could not be reverse engineered and the offending codes removed; but in that case, it would not be a matter of just replacing the computers, but also redesigning the entire flight control system from the ground up and completely testing it. This would be such a huge expense that it would be impossible to hide in the German budget. Anybody who takes Vialls' advice and asks this silly question to Von Buelow, is revealed as a fool.

A more thorough debunking of Vialls' writing is found at Eric Hufschmid's website, linked below.

The "no suicide pilots" theory was taken up by antiwar activist Carol Valentine, but she couldn't buy into Vialls' theory that the controls were hijacked by a ragtag crew of Islamic fundamentalists. She argued that the system must have been operated by someone with deep connections within the US government. Meanwhile, stories started to circulate that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile or a bomb, not by an airliner. This argument was generically known as "Hunt the Boeing" because of a French website by that title, but the thesis was decisively discredited by Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com. For some reason, Carol Valentine adopted a variant of the "Hunt the Boeing" thesis, and wandered off into her strange "Bumble Planes" snake pit, which I have analyzed in detail elsewhere on this website.

Vialls and Valentine both seem to be insane. But perhaps there is a method to their madness. If by some chance they are government propagandists, then perhaps we can discover the truth by looking at what it is they are trying to hide, and how, and why. (If you think that I have just demonstrated conclusively that I myself am insane to even suggest that they might be government agents, you might want to try a Google search on the keyword "Cointelpro", or check the links at my media page. But stay with me for a moment...)

In this case, Vialls has told us himself that he is an insider, a British aeronautical engineer with links to DARPA as well as the German airline Lufthansa. This means he would have signed non-disclosure agreements, and could not release classified information without approval, or face ruinous legal consequences. Thus, if his information is true, the leak must be officially approved. Former German Defense Minister Von Buelow picked up the leak and confirmed it, thereby adding German support to the British allegation.

So the only question is whether both Vialls and Von Buelow are both courageous whistle blowers who have torn apart all ties with their former employers, or whether they are still insiders.

Carol Valentine has recently charged that both Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com and Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com are "members of the fake opposition", so it seems only fair to test her] by the same standards which she applies to others. See my media page for further information.

Suppose that there was a remote control system available on the aircraft. The engineers and operations people who knew about it, would immediately start to raise questions. According to Vialls, now the system has been compromised and all flights everywhere would be at risk. This would represent a powerful incentive for those good-hearted engineers and scientists to keep quiet. Otherwise there would be obvious security risks in terms of the possibility that still more hijackers could figure out how to operate the controls; as well as the risk of a panic as passengers everywhere refused to ride these airplanes.

If Joe Vialls is a propagandist, then his job is to do damage control among those engineers who designed the "Home Run" system, and among anyone else who knows about it. It's very important to keep them quiet.

He also works hard to discredit the arguments posed by Jared Israel as to why the Air Force did not scramble to meet the challenge of the hijackers. He writes:

This is peacetime, when most home-based western combat aircraft normally carry only “drill” (dummy) missiles on their wing pylons, and have no live cannon shells in the ammo trays. Damn, we just bumped into our first irritating time delay! Though unarmed interceptors can quickly be used to check out the status of off-course aircraft like Payne Stewart’s Lear Jet, they are effectively useless against hostile targets. We keep them unarmed for a very good reason. On a scale of one to ten, listing the types of accidents all air forces try to avoid, jettisoning live Sidewinder missiles down the chimney of City Hall probably rates as number one or two.

Each western country keeps a handful of interceptors armed in case of a surprise attack, and bases them at the outer extremities of its national sovereign territory, from where the attack will come. Though the Official Secrets Act prohibits me from stating exactly how many armed aircraft are available in Britain or America in peacetime, rest assured the figure is exceedingly small. Any reasonable and intelligent person can deduce from this, that aircraft based close to major cities like London and Washington, DC, will not be armed at all in peacetime.

Again, I have no inside knowledge but I sure hope this isn't true, otherwise the US is pretty much defenseless.

Valentine's job, similarly, could be to do damage control among antiwar activists, by advocating an obviously wrong, virtually impossible remote control theory. Valentine's readers are sent along to Vialls' site where they can readily see that he makes strange and inexplicable arguments. Now it seems clear that everybody who is advocating the remote control theory is either crazy or a xxxx. The whole theory is discredited as a hopeless mess. Meanwhile, the key concept that the necessary remote controls were built right into every 757 and 767 is lost in the shuffle.

Furthermore, Valentine's followers also see Vialls' attacks on Jared Israel and his argument that jets should have scrambled on 9/11, so he is discredited as well, even if only subliminally. And worst of all, any ordinary citizens of this United States Republic, who happen to encounter the wreckage of "Hunt the Boeing" and the "Bumble Planes", will quickly turn aside.

"Those aren't the droids you're looking for. Keep moving along..."

Here are links:

Eric Hufschmid http://geocities.com/erichufschmid/PentagonPlaneCrash2.html

Bumble Planes http://www.regena.com/strange_theory_of_the_bumble_pla.htm

Joe Vialls http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

Hunt the Boeing http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Von Buelow interview http://www.regena.com/VonBuelow.htm

posted March 24, 2002 by Jerry Russell; updated March 25, 2002

NEW March 28, 2002:

Joe Vialls is reported to be a SAS (British intelligence agency) operative!!

http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpajoevialls.html

Joe states he is a former British SAS Officer but fails to tell us the SAS is integrally linked to intelligence and law enforcement organizations like MI6 and the Special Branch - of whom have been caught out fabricating evidence and other forms of unacceptable behaviour in the past.

*NEW* April 14, 2002:

Regarding combat readiness of American forces, compare Vialls' argument to this statement in the Boston Globe:

Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.... said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.

*NEW* May 26, 2002:

Reader Doug Herrick took exception to my statement that it would be "idiotic" to disable the cockpit flight voice recorder during a hijacking. As Herrick points out, in an article titled "When is an autopilot not an autopilot", Guy Dunphy argued exactly the opposite, that this would be a desirable security feature:

http://webpages.shepherd.edu/DHERRI01/When...20Autopilot.htm

There is one other channel via which the secret might leak out - the cockpit voice recorder. Supposing the plane crashed, and accident investigators played it back. Or even if it was just played back after the landing. Much better if the record was just an unexplained blank.

So, another design feature of our anti-hijack system would be that it must shut off all cockpit voice signals to the recorder. Let it continue recording silence, overwiting its entire loop with nothing. Maybe also shut off or spoof data to the blackboxes as well.

-----

and there is also a time to stop shadowboxing with those who are only her to waste our energies.....

Peter, when I first came across Joe Vialls, which is a long, long time ago, I believe he listed himself as a former petroleum engineer and appeared in Tony Collins book "Open Verdict".

Since then he has cropped up from time to time in a number of iinteresting cases, including the death of Woman Police officer Yvonne Fletcher who was fatally shot outside the Libyan delegation in London back in Reagan days. It was Joe's letter to Channel Four's Dispatches commissioning editor that eventually resulted in the two (or was it three?) Dispatches programmes about Fletcher's assassination. When speaking with the maker of these documentary films I learned that almost everything Vialls claimed was proven wrong --- except, and it is a notable exception - that he was right in claiming that the US intelligence community were responsible.

Make of this what you will, but I persoanlly would step cautiously in using him as a source (he claimed to have been mind controlled as to have killed Yvonne Fletcher). My guess (and it is only a guess) based on the understanding of the technique of disinformation to mix fact and fantasy together for a specific reason, is that I would avoid him.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings. If this were true, it would raise some very interesting questions. On the one hand, if the systems were used to control the aircraft and pilot them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then who was at the controls? How did they get access to the secret codes?

But on the other hand: if these systems were on the aircraft, and they were not compromised by some enemy trick of espionage, then why weren't they used on September 11 to save the four ill-fated flights?

Let me quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

The following information was added to the Vialls web site, January 20, 2002:

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-

"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..."

Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-

"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

How very clever (and discreet) of Von Buelow to sort of "drop the information" into the middle of an interview about the 9/11 attacks!

Finally, in February 2002, Vialls provided the following:

There have also been claims that I have refused to reveal “sources” or “proof” of the classified Home Run system, which is not true. In my first report I carefully stated that “two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft.” This should have acted like a homing beacon for any serious researcher. DARPA has a web site that can be accessed by anyone on the Internet, and within that web site is a search engine. A judicious advanced search of the DARPA web site should yield, as they say, “something of interest”.

Finally, there is former German Defense Minister Andreas Von Buelow, who is frequently available for questions at meetings around Germany. Because of national security Von Buelow is most unlikely to comment directly, but he might respond to the following question: “Can you deny that during the mid-nineties, Lufthansa removed and replaced the flight control computers on certain American aircraft in its fleet for security reasons?”

Now, I have no inside knowledge, but as an engineer, Vialls' story rings true. I believe that "hijack recovery" would have been a very obvious feature to incorporate into a computerized aircraft control system, and also that European customers of Boeing aircraft would find this a very troublesome and controversial feature.

On the other hand, Joe Vialls goes on to make some very absurd claims about this "Home Run" system. For example, that the system would require the Cockpit Voice Recorder to go blank. What kind of idiotic engineering team would design a system that would require the voice recorder go silent during the critical moments following a hijack attempt?

Furthermore, the idea that it would be necessary to "remove and replace the flight computers" doesn't make sense. Why not just change the software? One could imagine that the Americans could encrypt and encapsulate the computer so thoroughly that it could not be reverse engineered and the offending codes removed; but in that case, it would not be a matter of just replacing the computers, but also redesigning the entire flight control system from the ground up and completely testing it. This would be such a huge expense that it would be impossible to hide in the German budget. Anybody who takes Vialls' advice and asks this silly question to Von Buelow, is revealed as a fool.

A more thorough debunking of Vialls' writing is found at Eric Hufschmid's website, linked below.

The "no suicide pilots" theory was taken up by antiwar activist Carol Valentine, but she couldn't buy into Vialls' theory that the controls were hijacked by a ragtag crew of Islamic fundamentalists. She argued that the system must have been operated by someone with deep connections within the US government. Meanwhile, stories started to circulate that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile or a bomb, not by an airliner. This argument was generically known as "Hunt the Boeing" because of a French website by that title, but the thesis was decisively discredited by Mike Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com. For some reason, Carol Valentine adopted a variant of the "Hunt the Boeing" thesis, and wandered off into her strange "Bumble Planes" snake pit, which I have analyzed in detail elsewhere on this website.

Vialls and Valentine both seem to be insane. But perhaps there is a method to their madness. If by some chance they are government propagandists, then perhaps we can discover the truth by looking at what it is they are trying to hide, and how, and why. (If you think that I have just demonstrated conclusively that I myself am insane to even suggest that they might be government agents, you might want to try a Google search on the keyword "Cointelpro", or check the links at my media page. But stay with me for a moment...)

In this case, Vialls has told us himself that he is an insider, a British aeronautical engineer with links to DARPA as well as the German airline Lufthansa. This means he would have signed non-disclosure agreements, and could not release classified information without approval, or face ruinous legal consequences. Thus, if his information is true, the leak must be officially approved. Former German Defense Minister Von Buelow picked up the leak and confirmed it, thereby adding German support to the British allegation.

So the only question is whether both Vialls and Von Buelow are both courageous whistle blowers who have torn apart all ties with their former employers, or whether they are still insiders.

Carol Valentine has recently charged that both Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com and Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com are "members of the fake opposition", so it seems only fair to test her] by the same standards which she applies to others. See my media page for further information.

Suppose that there was a remote control system available on the aircraft. The engineers and operations people who knew about it, would immediately start to raise questions. According to Vialls, now the system has been compromised and all flights everywhere would be at risk. This would represent a powerful incentive for those good-hearted engineers and scientists to keep quiet. Otherwise there would be obvious security risks in terms of the possibility that still more hijackers could figure out how to operate the controls; as well as the risk of a panic as passengers everywhere refused to ride these airplanes.

If Joe Vialls is a propagandist, then his job is to do damage control among those engineers who designed the "Home Run" system, and among anyone else who knows about it. It's very important to keep them quiet.

He also works hard to discredit the arguments posed by Jared Israel as to why the Air Force did not scramble to meet the challenge of the hijackers. He writes:

This is peacetime, when most home-based western combat aircraft normally carry only “drill” (dummy) missiles on their wing pylons, and have no live cannon shells in the ammo trays. Damn, we just bumped into our first irritating time delay! Though unarmed interceptors can quickly be used to check out the status of off-course aircraft like Payne Stewart’s Lear Jet, they are effectively useless against hostile targets. We keep them unarmed for a very good reason. On a scale of one to ten, listing the types of accidents all air forces try to avoid, jettisoning live Sidewinder missiles down the chimney of City Hall probably rates as number one or two.

Each western country keeps a handful of interceptors armed in case of a surprise attack, and bases them at the outer extremities of its national sovereign territory, from where the attack will come. Though the Official Secrets Act prohibits me from stating exactly how many armed aircraft are available in Britain or America in peacetime, rest assured the figure is exceedingly small. Any reasonable and intelligent person can deduce from this, that aircraft based close to major cities like London and Washington, DC, will not be armed at all in peacetime.

Again, I have no inside knowledge but I sure hope this isn't true, otherwise the US is pretty much defenseless.

Valentine's job, similarly, could be to do damage control among antiwar activists, by advocating an obviously wrong, virtually impossible remote control theory. Valentine's readers are sent along to Vialls' site where they can readily see that he makes strange and inexplicable arguments. Now it seems clear that everybody who is advocating the remote control theory is either crazy or a xxxx. The whole theory is discredited as a hopeless mess. Meanwhile, the key concept that the necessary remote controls were built right into every 757 and 767 is lost in the shuffle.

Furthermore, Valentine's followers also see Vialls' attacks on Jared Israel and his argument that jets should have scrambled on 9/11, so he is discredited as well, even if only subliminally. And worst of all, any ordinary citizens of this United States Republic, who happen to encounter the wreckage of "Hunt the Boeing" and the "Bumble Planes", will quickly turn aside.

"Those aren't the droids you're looking for. Keep moving along..."

Here are links:

Eric Hufschmid http://geocities.com/erichufschmid/PentagonPlaneCrash2.html

Bumble Planes http://www.regena.com/strange_theory_of_the_bumble_pla.htm

Joe Vialls http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

Hunt the Boeing http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Von Buelow interview http://www.regena.com/VonBuelow.htm

posted March 24, 2002 by Jerry Russell; updated March 25, 2002

NEW March 28, 2002:

Joe Vialls is reported to be a SAS (British intelligence agency) operative!!

http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snpajoevialls.html

Joe states he is a former British SAS Officer but fails to tell us the SAS is integrally linked to intelligence and law enforcement organizations like MI6 and the Special Branch - of whom have been caught out fabricating evidence and other forms of unacceptable behaviour in the past.

*NEW* April 14, 2002:

Regarding combat readiness of American forces, compare Vialls' argument to this statement in the Boston Globe:

Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo.... said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.

*NEW* May 26, 2002:

Reader Doug Herrick took exception to my statement that it would be "idiotic" to disable the cockpit flight voice recorder during a hijacking. As Herrick points out, in an article titled "When is an autopilot not an autopilot", Guy Dunphy argued exactly the opposite, that this would be a desirable security feature:

http://webpages.shepherd.edu/DHERRI01/When...20Autopilot.htm

There is one other channel via which the secret might leak out - the cockpit voice recorder. Supposing the plane crashed, and accident investigators played it back. Or even if it was just played back after the landing. Much better if the record was just an unexplained blank.

So, another design feature of our anti-hijack system would be that it must shut off all cockpit voice signals to the recorder. Let it continue recording silence, overwiting its entire loop with nothing. Maybe also shut off or spoof data to the blackboxes as well.

-----

and there is also a time to stop shadowboxing with those who are only her to waste our energies.....

Peter, when I first came across Joe Vialls, which is a long, long time ago, I believe he listed himself as a former petroleum engineer and appeared in Tony Collins book "Open Verdict".

Since then he has cropped up from time to time in a number of iinteresting cases, including the death of Woman Police officer Yvonne Fletcher who was fatally shot outside the Libyan delegation in London back in Reagan days. It was Joe's letter to Channel Four's Dispatches commissioning editor that eventually resulted in the two (or was it three?) Dispatches programmes about Fletcher's assassination. When speaking with the maker of these documentary films I learned that almost everything Vialls claimed was proven wrong --- except, and it is a notable exception - that he was right in claiming that the US intelligence community were responsible.

Make of this what you will, but I persoanlly would step cautiously in using him as a source (he claimed to have been mind controlled as to have killed Yvonne Fletcher). My guess (and it is only a guess) based on the understanding of the technique of disinformation to mix fact and fantasy together for a specific reason, is that I would avoid him.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

Len,

For what little it may be of value, my penny’s worth is that the question itself is flawed.

My grandson has a model car that can be remotely controlled. The same principle is used to drive grown-up cars remotely. US Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s) abound. Boeing’s “Condor” has a wing-span greater than a 747 compared to the Exodrone Dragon Drone that weighs only 89 pounds. Then there is the Predator that besides surveillance missions packs Hellfire Air-to-Ground missiles and groups of these nasty aircraft can be tasked to fly in swarms.

I know of no available proof that large commercial aircraft can be fitted to fly remotely, but I’m pretty damned sure that the technology exists. It is, after all, the logical and obvious next step from drones. And if nothing else, the military intelligence community are chillingly and icily logical. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taranis_%28UAV%29 -- and note that there is usually a lapse of approx. 20 years between what we know and what they are doing now).

To use the old saw, last winter I woke up to find snow on the ground. I didn’t see it arrive and have no proof it fell from the sky as it usually does, but I can safely deduct that it did.

Sometimes the need for absolute proof blinds us to reality.

David

Edited June 27, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Kevin M. West]

Of course they can be, but it requires rebuilding the control system of the plane. It's not something that can be done to a comercial airliner without anyone (eg, the airline mechanics) noticing, and without the plane in question being out of service for a while. Add the airline management, security, and maintenance crews to the list of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if you believe the planes were remote control.

[Jack White]

I never heard of this guy, David. But I am HAPPY to be the NEMESIS of any provocateur.

From American Heritage dictionary:

nem·e·sis (nm-ss)

n. pl. nem·e·ses (-sz)

1. A source of harm or ruin: Uncritical trust is my nemesis.

2. Retributive justice in its execution or outcome: To follow the proposed course of action is to invite nemesis.

3. An opponent that cannot be beaten or overcome.

4. One that inflicts retribution or vengeance.

5. Nemesis Greek Mythology The goddess of retributive justice or vengeance.

[Greek, retribution, the goddess Nemesis, from nemein, to allot; see nem- in Indo-European roots.]

.......

I especially like 2, 3 and 4. And I volunteer to be the NEMESIS of all provocateurs,

inflicting retributive justice and vengeance without being beaten!

Jack

[Len Colby]

The breadth of your expertise never ceases to amaze, Len. You offer (almost) instant opinion about practically anything and everything. Quite remarkable really.

I would submit that Len's 9/11 expertise is derived almost exclusively from this website: http://911myths.com/index.html

You’d be wrong then, I research numerous sources, though I concede I cite it more than any other single source. It is an excellently researched site.

“Is there some good information there? Yes there is. Is there some poor research there? I think that there is.”

Funny then the only think wrong with the site I remember you (or anybody else finding with it) was that one of the links on one of the pages had gone dead. I found a mistake on the site which he promptly corrected, he had mistaken for granted that one of the “truther” claims was true!

On the homepage the author(s) offer this advice:

But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less.

I think Len believes that in many cases, merely posting a link to this site proves whatever point he is trying to make at the time.

Some times when I’m short on time I merely post a link to it especially in cases where I think he has shown clearly that “inside jobber” claims are wrong such as the specious “the were no Arab names on the flight manifests” BS that people like Griffin, Fetzer and Dewendy still cite. The author of the site is very good at documenting his claims

“And although I am sure that Len will deny it, it appears to me that he will go to almost any lengths he deems necessary in order to diminish the credentials of those with whom he disagrees. To some extent we all employ the same tactic in advancing an argument, but Len seems to take that tactic to an extreme which borders on the silly sometimes. I would provide quotes, but I've lost most of my motivation to engage in an endless back and forth with him. It never leads anywhere.”

In the case of the collapse of 9/11 we have yet to see the emergence of a qualified expert who challenges the “collapse theory”. The closest they have is a structural engineer who spent his entire career working on deep sea oil rigs structures that have very little to do with steel framed buildings. Yes his opinion is more valuable than that of most people but he is commenting on something outside his area of specialty and it is unclear how carefully he read the relevant technical reports. It would be like weighing the opinion of a pediatrician, who had only read about her, concerning your grandmother’s Alzheimer’s disease against the universal consensus of numerous neurologists, geriatricians and psychiatrists who examined her.

Your lack of “motivation” to find actual examples is very ‘convenient’ because it leaves me unable to rebut your charges.

“Back in the sixties, one didn't have to be a world leading forensic pathologist, or a recognized ballistics expert, or a renowned crime scene specialist to recognize that the Warren Report, and hence the government that strenuously backed it, was lacking to the point of fraud. A Maryland poultry farmer, a research analyst at the World Health Organization and a New York lawyer demonstrated as much.”

You have me at a disadvantage because I know little of the history and historiography of JFK assassination research. But IIRC one thing they had to go on were the opinions of people with relevant expertise including the doctors at Parkland who said the president had entry wounds on the front of his head. Also IIRC much of what they uncovered wasn’t inherently technical. The collapses of the towers was technical. How much time would the floor connections add to the collapse? A Maryland poultry farmer, a research analyst at the World Health Organization and a New York lawyer aren’t qualified to answer that question neither are theologians, particle physicists or dental filling engineers.

Another difference is the amount of technical data available. NIST’s technical reports (upon which the final report is based) total thousands of pages, there was additional data in:

- the report carried out by American Society of Civil Engineer, Structural Engineers Association of New York and several other engineering associations (aka the FEMA Report),

- the Silverstein Report and

- the research carried out by engineers from the University of California (Berkley).

Yet no qualified engineers even from countries hostile to the US or from predominantly Moslem countries have challenged the collapse theory. An Iranian university professor and advisor to the Ministry of Education charged that “Tom and Jerry” was a Jewish plot perpetrated by “the Jewish Walt Disney Company”, but no engineers from that country have said explosives were planted in the towers.

“In the case of 9/11, endless debate about who is the best structural engineer…”

This isn’t an issue with the collapse of the WTC because although controlled demolition claims have been well known for years and thousands of pages of technical reports have long been available the only structural engineer to publicly back such theories isn’t qualified in buildings. This lead Fetzer to damn structural engineers to hell on at least two occasions.

“…or who is the most accomplished pilot…”

I don’t remember advancing arguments along those lines. Very few qualified pilots have challenged the aviation aspects of 9/11. Pilots who knew Hanjour including the one who refused to rent him a Cessna said they think he would have had little difficult hitting the Pentagon.

“…or what college someone attended means little.”

I only brought this up in response to Jack posting a link to a list of ‘100 professors who question 9/11’ the implicit assumption behind the list seems to be ‘professors are smarter than most people therefore it’s impressive that so many question 9/11’. If they want to use logic like that it’s fair to look at where the professors taught because presumably professors at MIT as a group are smarter than those at Pellissippi State Technical Community College.

“Empirical logic, intellectual honesty, clarity of thought, and impeccable documentation mean much more.”

I agree these are vitally important can you show that the dozens (or more likely hundreds) of structural engineers with relevant expertise who back the collapse theory lack these qualities? Or that the hodgepodge of “truther” “experts” who seem to hail from every professional background except structural engineer are especially well endowed with them? Griffen cited a computer game manual as an authoritative source regarding FAA policy, Fetzer claimed that the transcript of flight 93’s CVR tape contained things it didn’t, Scott made false claims about pre-9/11 intercepts etc etc is that what you had in mind?

[Len Colby]

Of course they can be, but it requires rebuilding the control system of the plane. It's not something that can be done to a comercial airliner without anyone (eg, the airline mechanics) noticing, and without the plane in question being out of service for a while. Add the airline management, security, and maintenance crews to the list of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy if you believe the planes were remote control.

That’s only half the problem (i.e altering the planes in a way that wouldn’t be detected) the other would be remote controlling the planes in a way that the pilots would not be able to override.

[Jack White]

Check this new article:

http://www.rense.com/general75/melt2.htm

Well, well, well my old nemesis Jack White.

I'm curious, Jack. Is there ANY bizarre conspiracy theory that you DON'T believe?

Mr. Folsom, or whoever you are: I do not know you, but am very pleased to be your NEMESIS.

I wish all provocateurs considered me their nemesis.

Conspiracies exist. That is a fact. I believe that conspiracies exist.

Bizarre conspiracies exist. That is a fact. I evaluate evidence in search of truth. I believe in facts.

Not all bizarre events are conspiracies. Not all conspiracies are bizarre. Many alleged conspiracies

are not. Many bizarre happenings are not supported by facts. Your imprecision is typical of

smear practitioners; you should seek another line of employment.

Thanks.

Your humble nemesis,

Jack

PS....

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)

n. pl. con·spir·a·cies

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

2. A group of conspirators.

3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

[Middle English conspiracie, from Anglo-Norman, probably alteration of Old French conspiration, from Latin cnsprti, cnsprtin-, from cnsprtus, past

participle of cnsprre, to conspire; see conspire.]

The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights

reserved.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

That one crackpot agrees with another isn't evidence of the veracity of their beliefs. Some 21 million or so Americans believe Elvis is still alive. A few dozen people drank Kool -Aide laced with cyanide because that believed the Haley-Bop comet would carry off their souls.

[Jack White]

You guys do not understand the proposition.

FOUR COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS WERE NOT ALTERED TO BE FLOWN REMOTELY.

IF Boeings were used, they were SPECIALLY EQUIPPED BY THE CONSPIRATORS.

It has not been shown that the "hijacked planes" were involved. Not a single

PART ID NUMBER has been provided, which is FAA routine.

The allegedly hijacked airliners did not impact the Pentagon or WTC, therefore

something else did, but it was not necessarily Boeing jetliners.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

That one crackpot agrees with another isn't evidence of the veracity of their beliefs. Some 21 million or so Americans believe Elvis is still alive. A few dozen people drank Kool -Aide laced with cyanide because that believed the Haley-Bop comet would carry off their souls.

To label the author of the aformentioned article a 'Crackpot' is a disservice to all the bona fide crackpots out there. A crackpot is defined (per Merriam Webster) as 'one given to eccentric or lunatic notions'.

Eccentrics can be entertaining and their notions can be weird and mysterious, often funny. Andy Kaufman was eccentric. So is Robin Williams.

The author of this ill conceived and blatantly obtuse article hasn't advanced to eccentric level yet. He is hovering somewhere near the nonsensical region of brain activity.

What I don't get; is he postulating a nuclear weapon was used to fell the twin towers? Or some kind of Star Wars weapon? He definitely likes to talk about eddy currents, although I don't see where he indicates evidence of eddy currents.

One point though, the author has elevated his work to the hieghts of eccentricity with his idea that the metal core of a steering wheel and/or the engine blocks evaporated and the rest of the car (body, chassis, axles, springs, etc.) remain behind. This theory/thought is highly entertaining. Maybe this article was issued as some kind of a joke.