Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (10356)	3/13/2005 11:08:18 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

IMO, if you wanted to have control over the situation, the last thing in the world you would want is to let the flights leave, then try to figure out some way to make them land, without anyone noticing, shuffle the passengers around, then try to use a different plane with every news camera in the country pointed at the buildings. That doesn't make a bit of sense to me. I also think the complexity of the maneuvers of the planes has been overly exaggerated by those putting forth various theories on the Internet. You can get a pilots license at the same age as a drivers license. In other words, a 16 year old is considered competent to fly a plane. No doubt the 16 year old would have to spend quite a bit more time to qualify to fly a passenger jet, but the same would be true if the 16 year old wanted to drive a semi. Whatever theory a person may have about the second plane, whether it was a 767, or a 737, or a 737 cargo plane, it certainly was not a small fighter jet, at least not for anyone who hasn't gone off the deep end on the truly wild stuff. Flying a plane by remote control is hardly new technology. You could have walked into any hobby shop in the country 30 years ago and bought a radio controlled model plane. I've seen enough articles on the subject that there shouldn't be any doubt that remote control technology has been successfully applied to full size planes for many years. I'd like to see the articles on "Home Run" better documented and substantiated, but if they have any basis in fact at all, the claim is the ability to take external control of a passenger jet is something built in at the factory as an anti hijacking measure. If so, a government sponsored hijacking would involve nothing more than knowing the codes to punch in. Considering at least 2 members of PNAC had intimate knowledge of remote control technology, it was certainly within their means to use it on 9/11. You may recall the recording of a "hijacker" saying "We have some planes." which was picked up over radio by flight controllers. The official story is the voice came from inside the plane, but what if it didn't? All of the black boxes went missing. What if all of them recorded desperate pilots trying to figure out why their planes were flying themselves? I'll freely admit all of the above is speculative. There just plain isn't enough information in the public domain to nail down any of the theories about the planes. About all I can say is even the goofiest of the theories make more sense than the one about how 19 wingnuts from the Middle East, who didn't know how to fly, are impossible to identify, and who were not listed as passengers on the flights, somehow managed to go heads up against a half trillion dollar a year military machine and win.