Remote Control Take Over
- the key to 9/11    

There are several scenarios involving Remote Control of the Aircraft, and other features.  The planes hit the buildings with "un-humanlike" speed, accuracy, and coldness.  It is logical that the perpetrators, whether Al-Queda or the White House, did not want a human to be the pilot, due to human error (missing the target), and last-minute desire to survive and not "meet Allah" just yet.  Remote Control of a plane explains all the plane parts and DNA found at the 9/11 crash sites.  Nothing provides more evidence of a crashed plane, than a crashed plane.

1. Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) of the Flight Management System (FMS) with Pilot Lock Out of Navigation and Communications (PLOONAC).

2. Remote control of FMS, and Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV) to suffocate the crew, passengers, and duped "hijackers" to prevent possible re-control of the plane.

3. Installation on jets with the "perfect cover" of making the jet hijack proof.  Who would object to that?


With Pilot Lock Out of Communications and Navigation
No one can hear you scream as your plane is taken over and crashes into buildings

Anti-Terrorism Auto Land System (ATALS)
Technology known to exist

A plane taken over by an Anti-Terrorism Auto Land System (ATALS) looks like a plane taken over by hijackers. Except a jet taken over by remote control would fly faster, more accurately, and crash into buildings without hesitation. The first remote controlled plane was in 1937.  Boeing filed a patent on 2/19/2003 just 526 days after 9/11 (1.4 years) and publicly announced it 11/28/2006. This possible explanation for 9/11/2001 should be investigated.

Patent 7,142,971  Files: February 19, 2003

The Boeing Company (Chicago, IL)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Disabling any onboard capability to supersede the engaged automatic control system

Patent 142971
System and method for automatically
controlling a path of travel of a vehicle

Patent 6845302
Airline Irreversible-control
Anti-hijack System

Airline Irreversible-control Anti-hijack System

RCTO with gassing of crew and passengers

Airliner irreversible-control anti-hijack system
US 6845302 B2
Directed toward universal commercial-airliner application as an air/ground-lifesaving function, this cost-effective retrofitable system enables airliner-pilots to conveniently actuate an inconspicuous AIRCIA™/enable-switch,—thereby instantly disabling onboard flight-commands to render the airliner's guidance-system irretrievably placed into total reliance upon its existing autopilot-system in RF-communication with encrypted remote ground/air-intercept personnel. Acting to virtually confound any criminal-attempt by a hijacker to commandeer an airliner, the airliner thus becomes flown only as directed by an authorized remote/flight-control station in cooperation with the airliner's remotely-reprogrammed onboard avionics-system, automatically vectoring the airliner to land safely via the existing avionics/autopilot-system at a designated airport. The AIRCIA™-system is initially verified for flight-worthiness operation upon every routine preflight/check-list procedure, its master ECU/restore-switch being accessible externally of the aircraft-interior. Support-system options include SmartCard®-interfacing, and automatic is engagement of AIRCIA™-system in event of natural-cause pilot-incapacitation, and ATI (Automatic/Tranquil-Infusion) which introduces tranquilizing-gas into the airliner's entire interior.

BUAP-ATI = Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot - Automatic Tranquilizer Infusion

Analysis of possible Remote Takeover by an experienced professional

Hypothetical view of Remote Control Take Over (RCTO) of flights 11 (WTC1), 77 (Pentagon), 93 (Shanksville), and 175 (WTC2) by RC pilots within range, in the white "dooms day" E-4B plane spotted near the crash sites on 9/11.

Remote Control Take Over (RCTO)
with Pilot Lock Out Of Navigation And Communication (PLOONAC)
RCTO could be developed under the cover of making jets "hijack proof".
Contractors and technicians would develop and install RCTO willingly.
If any planes are hijacked, the authorities can fly them to the nearest airport.

Wolf Blitzer and Brian Todd

Boeing patented ATALS in 2003 (not 2004 as CNN reported)
and the technology was available in testing by 9/11/2001.

Boeing patents Anti-Terrorism Auto-Land System (ATALS) in 2003

Remote Control Take Over with Pilot Lock Out of Navigation and Communication (RCTO/PLOONAC) would produce the same evidence and effect as 4 jets "hijacked by terrorists" and needs to be investigated.

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."
From Boeing's web page for selling the 757-200 archived at:

This FMCS apability is also included in their new 777.

The first public demonstration of a remote controlled aircraft was at a 1937 air show by Ross Hull and Clinton DeSoto. Such technology exists years in development before it is publicly patented. The first public demonstration of ATALS (auto-landed into WTC and Pentagon) may have been on 9/11/2001.

Russian MiG-23 crashed in Belgium in 19898
after pilot ejected and it flew for another hour.

Voice Morphing promotes the Official Conspiracy Theory of the box cutters.


Remote Control airplane contest, WAPT 16 News Jackson MS


Remote Control is used on many things, such as computers


Suffocated Occupants (Crew, Passengers and duped Hijackers)
In Remote Controlled Planes (Cabin Outflow Valve and Flight Management System)
Containing Explosives Hitting Buildings Containing Explosives
Let air out.  Kill everyone on board.  Fly by Remote into Buildings.

Was the plane really Flight 77?  Yes, but modified

Suffocated Occupants, Bombs in Baggage,
Remote Control of Cabin Outflow Valve (COV) and Flight Management System (FMS)

The plane could indeed have been Flight 77.  This would make the False Flag Black Operation even harder to detect.  The parts could be identify it by serial numbers.  People could be identified by DNA. 

Depressurization Hypothesis: Remote control of the Cabin Outflow Valve (COV) would cause air to be released from the fuselage at high altitudes. This caused depressurization of air in the fuselage, the main body of the plane.  This suffocated and incapacitated the crew, passengers, and hijackers into unconsciousness.  Hypothermia would also set it in due to loss of heat.  Additionally, the oxygen source for masks could have been disabled by covert agents on the ground crew, possibly with knock-out gas.  Even if they were available, in cases of extreme and rapid cabin depressurization, the oxygen masks are ineffective for long, especially above 10000 feet.  Cabin depressurization may have shown up on the Flight Data Recorders (FDR).  So it would be crucial for the perpetrators that the FDRs were "not found" or were "had no useful data" on 9/11.

"Loss of cabin pressure—which, without prompt alleviation, would cause pilot unconsciousness"
Decompression was determined to be the cause of the Helios crash in 14 August 2005.
Graphic to the right shows 2 jets intercepting the Helios aircraft with Asphyxiated Occupants who suffocated from lack of air.

Cabin Outflow Valve have causes depressurization emergencies before.
Graphic to the right illustrates pilots unconscious from oxygen deprivation due to cabin depressurization.

Passengers may have been able to make calls from seat back phones were possible.  But cell phones had to be faked.  Additional calls, using voice morphing may have been made to ensure that the planned story got out to the press.

Is Remote Control of a Jet Possible?  Yes

The plane would proceed under remote control, and crash into the Pentagon.  Remote control was a feature for Boeing 757 and 767's, and could have been enhanced by agents who infiltrated the ground maintenance crew.

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing." -

"With modern technology, almost anything is possible; certainly "robo-jets" are possible." - Apathoid, airline mechanic
From article on Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis (PDF).

ANETA's Refutation: Apathoid (Jay H.) does not deal with the hypothesis in the above video. He states that the process is difficult. But Boeing does many difficult things, and succeeded, as proven by their patent, which requires a working model. He proposes nerve gas which is unnecessary when the air is let out of the cabin. Much RCTO capability was already built into the Boeing jets. Nobody had to sneak in the planes to install it. The workers were making the plane hijack proof - a very worthy cause.

Remote Control of
Flight Management System Control Panel

Click for more details on Flight Management System (FMS) Control Display Unit (CDU)
and Environmental Control System (ECS)


U.S. Air Force General Myers admits to classified program to remote control airliners

"December 1, 1984. A remote controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base and is crash landed by NASA for fuel research.  Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 take-offs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings."  

Cl;ick for Remote Controlled Jet sequence From Loose Change video

Click for more information about Remote Control of Planes

Remote Control of planes has been an avid hobby for many years.
Remote Control of TVs and Garage Doors are common.
Remote Control of the COV and FMS is an extension.

Drones over Pakistan can be remote controlled from Nevada.

12194.38 kilometers
7577.25 miles away

Creech Air Force Base in Nevada

Reconnaissance vehicles modified to carry 100 lb Hellfire laser guided missiles.

NASA controls the Mars Spirit Rover every day by Remote Control.

On average Mars orbits the Sun at a distance of 227,939,100 km
On average the Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of 149,597,888 km

Thus the distance between their "average" orbital paths is 78,341,212 Km. However, they would actually only be this distance from one another on rare occasions.

Depending on where they are in their respective orbits, they can be anywhere from 36 million miles to over 250 million miles apart.

Hypothetical view of Remote Control Pilots for:

Flight 11 - WTC 1
Flight 77 - Pentagon
Flight 93 - WTC 7
Flight 175 - WTC 2


Remote Control of Cabin Outflow Valve
"The Key to 9/11"


When the air is let out and the temperatures fall
passengers pass out, and are frozen
as with Helios Airways Flight 522 that crashed in Greece

Senior Airman, 22nd Maintenance Squadron electrical environmental specialist, re-installs an Outflow Valve on a KC-135 Stratotanker...

This particular part is vital because it regulates cabin pressure to maintain a safe and comfortable environment for crew and passengers.

Without it, the environment is unsafe and uncomfortable.




Modified (under construction)

Regulates the cabin pressure by adjusting the outflow of cabin air

Info on Aircraft Cabin Pressure Control Valves

Patent on Cabin Air Outflow Valve

Patent on Aircraft Cabin Pressure Control Valve

High performance airplane pressurization system

in the engine attached to the wing


The following terms will aid in understanding the operating principles of pressurization and air conditioning systems:

  • Aircraft altitude—the actual height above sea level at which the aircraft is flying
  • Ambient temperature—the temperature in the area immediately surrounding the aircraft
  • Ambient pressure—the pressure in the area immediately surrounding the aircraft
  • Cabin altitude—cabin pressure in terms of equivalent altitude above sea level
  • Differential pressure—the difference in pressure between the pressure acting on one side of a wall and the pressure acting on the other side of the wall. In aircraft air-conditioning and pressurizing systems, it is the difference between cabin pressure and atmospheric pressure.


Cabin Pressure Control System (using example of smaller D-Jet)

The cabin pressure is controlled by two outflow valves governed by a fully automatic system requiring no more pilot attention than the pre-flight input of the landing field’s elevation and in-fl ight monitoring of the parameters displayed. The maximum cabin altitude is 8,500 feet, which is maintained to the D-JET’s certifi ed ceiling of FL250. The cabin rates of climb and descent are automatically regulated by the system to provide smooth transitions for the comfort of passengers and pilot.

In case of cabin under-pressure at altitude, visual and audible warnings make the pilot immediately aware of a potentially dangerous situation and the need to return as instructed in the manual to physiologically safe environmental conditions at a lower altitude. Such a loss of pressurization is rare and is always treated as a severe failure condition. Having such a failure at or below the D-JET’s certifi ed 25,000-foot ceiling is far less critical than such a failure occurring in other aircraft at much higher altitude. This concept is a cornerstone of our D-JET safety philosophy, especially for low time, or step-up pilots. In case of rapid depressurization, stand-by oxygen masks are easily accessible to both pilot and co-pilot, to ensure their ability to safely descent the aircraft to a lower, physiologically safe altitude. Emergency oxygen masks also are provided to rear seat passengers.

B737 Cabin Pressure Outflow Valve

Here's how cabin air is circulated, filtered, and refreshed throughout most of today's aircraft:
  1. Fresh air continuously enters both engines at -65 degrees. Temperature and pressure are increased, then air is passed through a control valve and cooled by additional outside air.
  2. HEPA filters remove 99.7 percent of particles; new technology could destroy 100 percent of all bacteria and viruses.
  3. Filtered, recirculated cabin air and fresh air are combined.
  4. The aircraft is divided into ventilation segments of three to seven rows; you share air only with passengers in your segment.
  5. Outflow valve continuously releases cabin air and helps maintain constant pressurization of aircraft.

Source: The Daily Informer, Barbara Peterson, Haisam Hussein

GPS for Aircraft

Flight Management System Trainer and Cockpit Simulator

Hypothetical view of Remote Control Pilots for 9/11 flights

Remote Control of FMS

It would be even more convenient to have explosives on board.  They could be timed to explode the plane just prior to impact, to reduce the damage to the Pentagon wall.  Explosive charges could be placed in the engines, to blow them up.  This would explain why we don't see a big hole in the wall.  This would reduce the damage to the Pentagon.  After all, the military did not want to do too much damage to their own building.  Just enough to fool everyone.

Were oxygen masks also fixed with poisonous or knock-out gas?
Oxygen tanks could have been replaced with tanks of cyanide gas.
Bombs could have been placed in bags in the baggage compartment

Materials and Personnel needed to pull off 9/11:

19 Hijackers (originally 25) who think they are doing a hijacking to land and make demands, or
    Covert Agents who think they are helping to catch hijackers and will not be prosecuted.
RC of Cabit Outflow Valve (COV) to suffocate crew, passengers and duped hijackers
Boeing aircraft capable of being flown by Remote Control of Flight Management System (FMS)
Explosives in a suit case, trigger to go off before impact (Pentagon) or after impact (WTCs)
6 War game simulations to confuse NORAD and air defense, and provide plausible cover
Opportunity to pre-plant explosives under a plausible cover
    WTCs: ACE Elevator Company working in the elevator shafts and ceiling panels of WTC
    Pentagon: Renovations of Accounting Wing of the Pentagon
People in the media to spin the official story

User avatar

Remote control technology - 911 Strike 

Remote control: built-in or bolt-on? by Jerry Russell.
Advocates of the theory that remote control might have been used to guide the 9/11 aircraft to their targets, ...

Remote Controlled Boeings on 9/11? - Oil Empire
There is considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that remote control technology may have been used to override the planes's controls. It is highly ...

Directing Planes, by Remote Control -

The New York Times
Oct 27, 2014 - A small airport in northern Sweden is showcasing technology that many expect will eventually transform the way air traffic is managed ...

  • Never investigated by
    Bush's 9/11 Commission

    Ace Elevator Company
    working in the shafts from 1994 - 2001
    perfect place to plant explosives
    LVY Systems
    removing asbestos above ceiling panels
    perfect place to plant explosives
    the security guard company
    supervising the workers

    Electricity and monitors shut
    down the weekend before 9/11

    Board of Directors: Marvin Bush
    George's brother
    Boeing's patented technology:
    Remote Control Take Over
    Looks just like a hijacking
    Ground Crew
    for the four jets
    possibly installing equipment for
    Remote Control Take Over

    Demand a new investigation of 9/11

    Pilots Locked Cockpit Doors for Decades















    What happened to the Passengers - if they were not knocked out?

    This theory proposes the passengers were gassed.  But here is a page the deals with this possibility from a prior version of this theory.

    Where there really Hijackers?  Yes

    The hijackers were indeed hijackers.  Their intent was just to hijack the planes,  land them at an airport, then make some demands, holding the passengers as hostages.  Demands could have been millions of dollars, the closing of military bases in Saudi Arabia (most the alleged hijackers were Arabian), or some such benefit.

    The hijackers were duped by the perpetrators.  They were deceived and double-crossed.  They could have been knocked out with the same gas that made the crew and passengers unconscious.  The hijackers were killed in the crash along with everyone on board.

    Naturally, the hijackers would have wanted to make some demands, and actually get something for their time, money, and efforts.  They did not intend to die, according to this theory.  What good does dying do them?  People don't kill themselves for no reason.  What good does killing a lot of innocent people do?  Why give the Muslims a bad name?   Cui bono

    There has to be a motive, for someone to go on such a mission to kill themselves.  Even if terrorizing America gives them a thrill, they would not get to see it.  The idea of hijacking a plane and killing one's self goes against basic human instinct.  It is a preposterous notion that demands a lot of evidence.  But the American public believed such a bizarre story.  Not even "devout Muslim" and lap dancer lover Muhammed Atta would kill himself for no benefit.

    What if even one of the 19 hijackers got "cold feet" and thought twice and refused to go on board.  Even one could foil the mission in flight.  If he was the pilot he could steer away as the building approached.  Or a hijacker could join with the passengers, say "I don't really want to die" and overthrow the hijackers. 

    In this scenario, the mobile phone calls could have been real. Also, some faked calls could have been added though voice morphing technology, to be sure that specific stories out to the press, such as the presence of box cutters.  The hijackers may well have had box cutters, as described.

    What about Atta's will, found in his suit case, that "just so happened" to have missed the connection through Boston airport?  Why would he take a will on a plane if he thought it would crash?  The will could have been planted.  Did other hijackers leave a last will and testament?  Many people write wills, just in case, who have no intent to hijack a plane. Why didn't the hijackers call their parents to say good bye before 9/11?

    It is a much easier to find guys to hijack a plane and live, than to hijack a plane and die. That's why they could get 19, plus more, to volunteer.  If Al Queda was recruiting hijackers for the mission, it would be much easier to get volunteers by offering $1 million each for a standard hijacking.  It does no one any good to accept $1 million to kill themselves, because they would no longer be around to receive the payment, nor enjoy it. 

    The organizing perpetrators knew that they would never have to pay the hijackers, because they would be gassed in the plane and killed in the crash.  So the perpetrators could even offer the hijackers $1 billion each.

    Why did some hijackers only want to learn how to take fly and not to land?  They had every intention of landing.  They would depend on the Auto Pilot to land the planes.  "No one thought of using planes to crash into buildings" said Condoleeza Rice and George Bush. Neither did the hijackers, in this scenario.  Only the true perpetrators thought of this.

    It is possible that some, or all of the hijackers were actually covert agents, who had been recruited to help catch a hijacking ring.   After the hijacking, they each planned to cooperate in convicting the other hijackers, confident that they would not themselves be prosecuted.  In reality, they were all scheduled to be sanctioned by the clever perpetrators who organized 9/11.

    Each group of hijackers did not know about the other 3

    In this scenario, each group did not know about the other 3 groups.  They may have been told there will be some other remote controlled drones involved, in case they were to get word that planes were flying in to buildings. They considered themselves the only plane with live people on board.  They did not envision that they would be gassed and killed as well. 


    What about Flight 93?  By the time the first 3 planes crashed into the WTCs and Pentagon, news of this was getting to the people on Flight 93 via mobile phone calls  The passengers, crew, and hijackers got word that the hijacked planes were crashing in to buildings.  This was bad news for everyone on board, including the hijackers.  None of them wanted to die.  The hijackers probably realized they had been double-crossed and sacrificed. 

    Perhaps the gas mechanism failed to knock them out.  Perhaps someone broke a window let good air in, causing depressurization.  Or perhaps the hijackers struggled to gain control of the airplane against the Auto Pilot.  Either way, they could not be allowed to live and talk.  They had to be shot down in Shanksville, or the Auto Pilot turned the plane's nose down by remote control.

    In such an operation there were multiple contingency plans.  Flight 93 may have been the "backup" plane for Flight 77 in hitting the Pentagon.   The perpetrators, being Americans, had no real intent to hit the White House or the Capitol.  The Pentagon was the only building in the Washington DC area that had pre-planted explosives.  So, when Flight 77 succeeded, the radio signal was given to the explosives in the baggage section of Flight 93 to detonate, as it would have just before impacting the Pentagon, so it crashed in Shanksville.

    It is also possible that Flight 93 was planned to be the 1 failure of the hijackers, and the 1 victory, to show that America was not totally vulnerable.  It could also have been a "backup" for Flight 77, in case it missed the Pentagon.  Or in case Flight 77 did not take off, as happened with Flight 43.  In this carefully laid plan, there were multiple contingency plans.  Without knowing any details of flight 93's crash, Dick Cheney said "I think an act of heroism just took place."1  Cheney had no way of knowing what had happened on board.  This was part of a carefully pre-planned script, for every contingency.

    Who were the hijackers really?  Some of the people have turned up alive, so there was Identify Theft.  One of the men lost his passport.  So we may never know who they really were unless we have a thorough investigation.   The 19 hijackers may have been covert assets, possibly of the CIA, who "knew too much" about something, or had outlived their usefulness.  Sending them on a hijacking mission was a "convenient" way to get rid of them, and they were sanctioned for elimination.

    Does this mean the RCoCAPOV&FMSIPCEHBCE Theory is the way 9/11 happened?

    No, of course not.  No one can go back in time to see.  This theory simply provides an alternative, and more plausible, explanation than the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) and others.

    Isn't this theory contradicted by 911Review?

    The issue of the size of the hole in the Pentagon has divided the truth movement.  So far there have been only 2 choices, that not everyone agrees with.  This forces people to take 2 "black or white" sides.  People had to pick 1 or the other.
    1. The hole is so small that only a missile or no plane hit the Pentagon.  0% of the damage was from Flight 77.
    2. The hole is as large as one would expect from a crash.  100% of the damage was from the Flight 77.
    Neither choice has been satisfying to everyone. If we go with #1, we are forced to discount those who saw a Boeing 757.  If we go with #2, we are forced to discount the statements of General Stubblebine, main stream news broadcasters, and others who remark on the less-than-expected debris.  People had to take sides.
    But there is a 3rd possibility, a "gray" possibility.  The size can be somewhere in between.  The damage could still be from a 757 and make a smaller hole.  Explosives would fragment the plane, and lessen the impact.  Explosives in the Pentagon did the remainder of the damage. Whether the damage was mitigated 25%, 40%, 60% or whatever remains to be determined.  My theory approximates that 33% of the damage was caused by explosives in the plane and 66% by explosives in the Pentagon.  But it could have been 50% - 50%, 60% - 40% or whatever.   We are just not limited to 2 choices: 100% versus 0%.
    911Review was a major inspiration for this theory, read years ago.  A review of the Review provides evidence fully supporting this new theory.  (Although the Review is limited to the old "100% versus 0%" thinking.)
    The publicly available photographic evidence is fully supportive of this theory:  everything from main stream news, to the frames released by the Pentagon. 
    The 96' gash on the first floor was made by the plane, along with pre-planted explosives, according to this theory.  There is no more need for a "black or white" choice - either plane, or explosives.  It was a combination of both. 
    It is important for the truth movement to have a plausible theory that unifies the opposing sides.   This theory accommodates the best and most evidence and testimony of both sides, the North of Citgo and the Plane hit the Pentagon. 
    Forcing people into an artificial limit of 2 choices is what has wasted time.  There are really 3 choices. 
    We don't have to pick from a "menu of 2 choices" any more.  Some percentage of the damage was caused by explosives in the plane, and the remainder by explosives in the Pentagon.  The only question is what percentage was done by each.

    Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, but not with the full impact of an intact plane.  It was Flight 77 - partially exploded.







    Remote controlled plastic explosives blew 6 to 8 windows, balanced on each side of the fuselage.  This caused a rush of air to be released from the fuselage, the main body of the plane.  This froze, asphyxiated and incapacitated the crew, passengers, and hijackers into unconsciousness.*  Additionally, oxygen masks could have been disabled by covert agents on the ground crew.  Even if they were available, in cases of extreme and rapid cabin depressurization, the oxygen masks are ineffective, especially above 10000 feet.  Cabin depressurization may have shown up on the Flight Data Recorders (FDR).  So it would be crucial for the perpetrators that the FDRs were "not found" or were "had no useful data" on 9/11.


    Possibility # 2: No - Substituted Drone Plane

    A problem with Possibility #1 is that the Boeing could not fly so fast, and turn with such G force.  The plane could have been substituted during the time that the radar went out.  Here is a paper about possible Flight 77 Substitution, based on the work of Dr. David Griscom.  He points out that there are hundreds of old plane available at the "plane grave yard" at David-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona.

    It would have been more convenient for the perpetrators to have a modified, remote controlled plane.  This would give them months to prepare it with just the right placement of explosives. It could do the high speed maneuvers that were seen, and less resistance to doing the operation.  It would eliminate last minute jitters by the pilot, possibly aborting the crash.

    Possibility #3: Yes and No - Flight 77 lands, loads explosives, passengers disembark, then it takes off to the Pentagon

    This is a possibility, since there was a time that Flight 77 was too low for radar.  But it is more complex, and requires precise timing.  Sounds like there is a lot of room for error on this option.  But it is a possibility to be considered.


    Either way, the plane could have been packed with explosives to go off upon impact








    This is the most complete and plausible explanation for 9/11 and the Pentagon. This hypothesis only uses technology that has been demonstrated, and is known to exist on 9/11/2001. Remote Control (RC) of a Boeing 720 jet was demonstrated at NASA on December 1, 1984, doing 10 takeoffs and 13 landings.

    A covert Ground Crew equipped Flight 77 with enhanced RC of navigation, communications, Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV), and placed bombs the cargo section and wings. After take-off, the pilots suddenly found they could not steer, or call for help. By RC, air flowed out of the CAPOV, so everyone could not breathe, call for help, or concentrate effectively on how to regain control of the jet.

    By computerized RC, the plane made a large loop, then flew North of Citgo, instead of the planned southern approach (possibly blown off course), into the Pentagon, Light poles were staged. The passengers included duped “hijackers” – confidential informants going to their next assignment in LA. Voice Morphing (demonstrated at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and reported in the Washington Post on February 1, 1999) and pre-recorded clips (from hijack simulation training exercises) got the Official Story out.

    Just prior to impacting the Pentagon (approximately 90 degree angle), bombs went off in the cargo area and wings, fully explaining the smaller-than-expected holes and lack of engine and wing marks (without the need for any fly over). Additional bombs, pre-planted during the Pentagon construction, made the controlled, directional damage (approximately 45 degrees) targeting the Accounting records. After about 30 minutes, allowing some Pentagon staff to escape, additional pre-planted bombs covered the impact area to complicate the scene.

    This hypothesis is the most complete explanation of 1) the aircraft, 2) what happened to the people, major testimonies (including 2 police officers) of a plane going towards the Pentagon, 3) internal damage and smaller than expected hole, 4) external physical evidence and plane parts, and 5) angle of approach



    Remote Control of Aircraft has been publicly demonstrated since
    the 1937 National championships in Detroit
    Ross Hull and Clinton DeSoto

    Boeing aircraft already had Remote Control capabilities on 9/11
    that could have been "enhanced" with Pilot Lock Out

    "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides
    for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200
    from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing."


    Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airlines




    Film stills from TV series "The Lone Gunmen" aired on FOX in March 2001


    Remote Control Take Over of Planes

    RC planes do not "chicken out" nor miss.  They hit their targets with cold, computerized precision, first time, every time.

    "December 1, 1984. A remote controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base and is crash landed by NASA for fuel research.  Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 take-offs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings."  

    Cl;ick for Remote Controlled Jet sequence From Loose Change video

    Remote Control technology has advanced greatly since 1984, just as computers have advanced since the release of the Apple Macintosh.

    Thumbnail Remote controlled model planes



    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.

    Flight Deck 

    The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crewmember operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments. 

    A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.  

    The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.  


    Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft can fly any of the seven 757/767 family members with only minimal additional familiarization. 



    Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis

    By Jay H. an Aviation Maintenance Technician/Avionics Technician for a major US airline.


    From: 911 Planes and Remote Control
    The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. 

    They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck. 

    No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature. 

    The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn. 

    The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. 

    There is only one way this can happen. 

    As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, NORAD can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used. 

    Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it. 
    911Myths does not think it is possible
    Remote_Takeover.pdf Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis
    by Apathoid @ earthlink . net, a professional avionics technician for a major US arline, who outlines the difficulties of using a 757 or 767, but concludes "With modern technology, almost anything is possible; certainly "robo-jets" are possible. "

    Remote Control of TVs and Garage Doors are common.
    Remote Control of the COV and FMS is an extension.
      Remote Control Take Over of drones.

    911 Pentagon Theory











    More on the Alternate Theory - Knock Out Gas

    Upon crashing, the gas evaporated into the air, and was not detected.  It is possible that some material from the planes may have microscopic residue of the gas, even after 10 years, and should be tested for that.

    Bombs could have been put in bags in the luggage compartment ready to go off on impact. 

    Could anyone remote control the valve of a cyanide gas tank in a moving plane, or open a valve to let air escape? 

    At least, we know that NASA can control surveying devices as far away as Mars.  So the technology is plausible.

    Two Types of Luggage Smuggled into the Cargo Section
    of the Planes to be Triggered by Remote Control


    for knocking plane occupants unconscious
    including crew, passengers and hijackers

    Hydrogen Cyanide Gas
    Released into cabin by remote control

    to ensure a smaller hole at Pentagon
    and large fire ball at the WTCs.

    Detonated by remote control

    The baggage containing the cyanide gas tanks could have also contained explosives, or placed next to bags with explosives, so they were not detected in the wreckage.

    What happens do occupants when Cyanide or Nerve gas is released into cabin?

    Hydrogen cyanide, under the name Zyklon B, was used as a genocidal agent by the Germans in World War II.  Reports have indicated that during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, hydrogen cyanide gas may have been used along with other chemical agents against the inhabitants of the Kurdish city of Halabja in northern Iraq.

  • People exposed to a small amount of cyanide by breathing it, absorbing it through their skin, or eating foods that contain it may have some or all of the following symptoms within minutes:
  • Exposure to a large amount of cyanide by any route may cause these other health effects as well:



    Alternate hypothesis (too complicated)

    Gassing Hypothesis: A knock out or deadly gas could have been released in to the passenger section, as well as the cockpit.  This would render everyone unconscious.  The plane basically became a Gas Chamber, with the occupants unable to escape, or open the windows to get fresh air.  The OCT states that the hijackers may have used mace or mustard gas.  This theory proposes it was triggered by remote control by the real perpetrators.