Imagining that teams of hijackers could successfully take over four jetliners then flawlessly fly three of them into relatively small targets, even though none had ever flown a jet, requires enormous leaps of faith. In contrast, robotically flying the jetliners into their targets could have been accomplished using the flight control computers that were standard equipment on the targeted planes.

All modern jetliners have sophisticated flight control computers, which allow the planes to be flown with at least the precision of a skilled human pilot. The 757s and 767s used in the 9/11/01 attack were developed in the 1970s and employ similar avionics. Both contain integrated flight management computer systems (FMCS) which provide automatic guadance and control of the aircrat "from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." ¹

Researcher Don Paul was among the first to describes the possible use of remote and programmed control in the execution of the 9/11/01 attack, in his 2002 book Facing Our Fascist State:

e x c e r p t

title: Facing Our Fascist State

authors: Don Paul

Home Run and Global Hawk

If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

Andreas von Buelow said that this technology was named Home Run.

The German went on to give his Tagesspeigel interviewer his overall perspective of the 9/11/01 attacks: '"I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry ... I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprang out of the mind of an evil man in his cave"'

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

Now, who or what would you trust for aerial missions as demanding as those of "'9/11'" (or trust to fly an airliner from one airfield in California to another in Australia): The Arab students who are described above, or the Global Hawk or Home Run technologies?

site: www.sfcall.com page: www.sfcall.com/issues%202002/10.7.02/paul_10_7_02.htm

See this English translation of Von Buelow's interview with Tagesspiegel.

The 'Home Run' theory skeptically mentioned by Von Buelow is certainly intriguing: it both contradicts the official account's presumption that officials had no way to abort the attack, and provides a made-to-order means by which the same officials could have covertly piloted the planes their targets. But in the years since Fascist State no evidence of it has emerged. If Home Run is a hoax, as suggested by the 9-11 Research analysis of it, it actually adds weight to the theories of the crime involving remote or programmed control of the jetliners: hoaxes presented as alternative theories of the 9/11 attack are most often advanced to conceal realities of the crime behind similar sets of observations.

Carrying out a robotic takeover of some or all of the jetliners destroyed on 9/11/01 need not have required anything as elaborate as special equipment installed covertly on fleets of jetliners. Since modern jetliners are capable of being flown by their flight control computers, no special equipment is required, necessarily, to turn the aircraft into 'suicide bombs'. In 2003 Jerry Russell debunked the idea that specially outfitted planes were required:

e x c e r p t

title: Remote control: built-in or bolt-on?

authors: Jerry Russell

Advocates of the theory that remote control might have been used to guide the 9/11 aircraft to their targets, have been troubled by a debate over whether the necessary remote controls were actually built-in to the aircraft, or whether they were bolted-on as a retrofit for the specific tasks of 9/11. Both theories have been viewed as having difficulties: building the system as standard equipment would require too many people to know about the system (causing security difficulties), while a retrofit of the system would also be too complex and expensive with excessive risks of discovery.
A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions.

site: www.911-strike.com page: www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm

References

1. 757-200 Background, boeing.com,

page last modified: 2007-02-09