The Remote Control Hypothesis:
Additional Support
Sam Aurelius Milam III
For
some time now, I've believed that the airplanes that crashed into the World
Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001, were remotely controlled.
I made that argument in the article Remote
Possibility, in the April 2006 issue of this newsletter and again
in Unnamed
Agency, first completed on Thursday, August 28, 2008.
On
Thursday, July 11, 2013, I watched a two-hour documentary called Curiosity:
Plane Crash. It was a Discovery Channel production, first released
in October of 2012. It told the story of a research project intended
to improve the understanding of what happens during the crash of a large
airplane. The researchers used a retired Boeing 727. They installed
some instrumentation, some crash dummies, and some high-speed video cameras.
They operated the airplane out of the international airport at Mexicali,
Mexico and prepared a crash site in a stretch of uninhabited desert, a
few miles south of the border.
The
documentary had a few flaws. The significance of certain events was
overstated in the narrative, apparently for dramatic effect. Their
claim that they were making the first ever attempt to crash an airplane
by remote control was refuted by their own footage of a previous attempt
by NASA to do the same thing. I believe that their claim that no
large airplane had ever before been flown by remote control was false because,
in my opinion, the airplanes that crashed on September 11, 2001 were flown
by remote control. Other than that, it was a reasonably well-done
documentary.
The
significance of the documentary follows from the fact that, since the airplane
was to be crashed, the crew had to bail out a few minutes prior to the
crash. Because of that, according to the narration, it was necessary
to control the airplane remotely during its final few minutes of flight.
I believe that claim to be in error. My understanding is that those
airplanes can land themselves using only the autopilot. A software
update in the flight computer should have enabled the airplane to crash
itself. I don't know why the researchers went to so much trouble
to do it the hard way. Maybe I'm wrong about the autopilot or maybe
it was a subtle attempt to send us a message. Read on.
To
enable the remote control of the airplane, the researchers installed, in
the airplane's control linkages, some servos and receivers for their control
signals. That raises another question. My previous research
suggests that such changes were unnecessary. Information that I found
on a Boeing website leads me to believe that the airplane already had the
potential to be remotely controlled, requiring only some software changes
in the flight computer. However, the way that the researchers did
it will also work. What's most interesting is the controller that
they used. Now, pay attention because this leads to the whole point
of this article. To control a Boeing 727 in flight and crash it into
the ground at the designated location, they used a standard model hand-held
radio control unit of the kind that hobbyists use to fly model airplanes.
They bought the thing at a hobby shop. They operated it from a Cessna
337 that they flew alongside of the 727.
Consider
the implications. A bunch of scientists and engineers, restricted
by a research budget and a deadline, and using a hobby store gadget, can
remotely control a Boeing 727, fly it to a designated location, and crash
it. That makes it seem reasonable that trained specialists in a covert
government agency, with a budget measured in billions of dollars, using
the best equipment available, should be able to do the same thing,
using any similar airplane. A Boeing 727 isn't so vastly different
from a Boeing 757 or a Boeing 767 as to make the idea seem implausible.
I
recommend Pentagon Anomalies and Unnamed Agency. Both essays
are available in The Sovereign's Library. Go to http://sovereign-library.org.uk/.
Click on the link for "Directory of Writing by Sam Aurelius Milam III"
and then look for "Consider the events of September 11, 2001".![10x5 Page Background GIF Image](../../Images/10x5_Page_Background.gif)
September 2013 |
Frontiersman,0c/o
4984 Peach Mountain Drive, Gainesville, Georgia 30507
http://frontiersman.org.uk/ |
Page
1 |
|