WERE THE HIJACKED PLANES REMOTELY CONTROLLED?

On October 7, 2001, the first operational deployment of “Global Hawk” spearheaded the American air and missile strikes on Afghanistan. Global Hawk is the name of the latest version of a high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned air vehicle (UAV); in other words, an unarmed pilotless drone plane that can take off, fire missiles, conduct missions such as photographing battlefields and land by remote electronic control. The jet aircraft, equivalent in wing size to a Boeing 737 commercial airliner, has a publicly announced range of 14,000 nautical miles (about halfway around the world) and can fly at altitudes of 65,000 feet for about forty hours.

“Working alongside other UAV reconnaissance assets, at least one Global Hawk was used to provide reconnaissance prior to the [Afghanistan] strikes and for successive post-strike battle damage assessment,” reported Jane's Aerospace on October 8, 2001.

Such remote-control and on-board-computer-capture technology was largely unknown to the American public at the time of 9/11. However, such Buck Rogers equipment had been developed in the 1970s and, by several credible accounts, was operational in the 1980s. By the spring of 2001, this unmanned drone, designated the RQ-4A Global Hawk UAV, was capable of flying a mission to Australia.

“On 23 April 2001,” according to Australia's Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), “Global Hawk flew non-stop from Edwards Air Force Base, California, to Edinburgh Air Force Base, South Australia, where it was based for nearly two months undergoing a series of demonstration flights. Global Hawk returned to the US on 7 June 2001.”

Dr. Brendan Nelson, Australia's parliamentary secretary to the minister of defense, said Global Hawk made aviation history when it became the first unmanned aircraft to fly nonstop across the Pacific Ocean in twenty-three hours and twenty minutes. The previous record for crossing the Pacific had stood for twenty-six years.

During its six weeks of demonstrations in Australia, Global Hawk undertook eleven missions with crews from both the US Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force. It was the first time the United States had operated Global Hawk with another nation.

According to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a newly designed Global Hawk aircraft was first flown at Edwards AFB on February 28, 1998. A Defense Department news release said, “The entire mission, including take-off and landing, was performed autonomously by the aircraft based on its mission plan.” The craft's ground controllers monitored the status of the flight.

The Global Hawk program is managed by DARPA for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office. The primary contractor is Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical and the principal suppliers are Raytheon Systems, Allison Engine Co., Boeing North American, and L3 Com. So what does this unmanned flight system have to do with September 11?

Former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülow, in a January 13, 2002, interview with the newspaper Tagesspiegel, in speaking about the 9/11 attacks, noted, “There is also the theory of one British flight engineer [and] 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 [the electronic flight system]. This theory says this technique was abused in this case.” Von Bülow could well have knowledge of this technology as several researchers and websites have stated that Lufthansa, Germany's national airline, was aware of the possibility of electronic capture and had quietly stripped the flight control systems out of its American-built jetliners in the early 1990s.

The British flight engineer Von Bülow mentioned is Joe Vialls, a journalist, author, private investigator, and a former member of the Society of Licensed Aeronautical Engineers and Technologists based in London. In an article published on several websites, Vialls claimed, “[T]wo American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, ‘Home Run’ [Vialls’ designation, 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.” wrote Vialls in late 2001.

“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 airplane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run's top-secret computer codes would be broken [or passed to unauthorized personnel] and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.”

After news of Global Hawk and its remote-controlled capability was first released, there was speculation that UAV technology might be used to thwart airline hijackings. Once a hijacking took place, the Global Hawk flight technology would be triggered and the electronically captured plane flown to a landing at a safe location regardless of the actions of the flight crew or the hijackers.

The seemingly outlandish suggestion that remote-controlled planes were crashed into American targets is backed by several intriguing facts, beginning with a little-noticed item in the September 28, 2001, edition of the New York Times in which President Bush announced his plans to protect air passengers. Along with the usual proposals, such as strengthening cockpit doors and transponders that cannot be turned off, he mentioned “new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.” Apparently, Bush was familiar with the Global Hawk technology but chose to present it as technology not yet available.

One aviation authority who did speak out on remote control was Robert Ayling, former CEO of British Airways who was quoted in The Economist in 2001 suggesting “aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”

After the 2001 attacks, many websites speculated that perhaps Global Hawk's first true operational use might have been conducted on September 11. After all, as all experienced aviation and military persons well know, if a technology such as Global Hawk is publicly revealed, it most probably has been in secret use for many years previously.

According to aviation insiders, while it may indeed be years before air traffic controllers can take electronic control of flying airliners, such technology already exists in certain modern jumbo jets equipped with electronic flight control systems, such as the Boeing 757 and 767, both of which were involved in the 9/11 attacks. This assertion seemed to be confirmed by a technical and operational analysis white paper published shortly after the 9/11 attacks by two Arizona technology companies, KinetX, Inc. of Tempe and Cogitek Corp. of Chandler.

These firms were trying to market their version of Global Hawk as an anti-hijacker system. “The National Flight Emergency Response System (NFERS) was developed to prevent the terrorist incident of 9/11 from ever happening again,” stated the companies’ white paper. “This system will protect passenger and cargo aircraft from being used as terrorist weapons. NFERS is essentially the integration of existing technology [emphasis added] for the purpose of transferring cockpit operations to a secure ground station in case of an emergency. It is important to note that the essential technology exists now.”

The two Arizona companies reported that they could have a prototype system ready for use in twelve months. If independent firms could manage a prototype that soon, it is clear that the government most probably has the same technology operational. Under such a system, a computer command ground station could electronically capture a plane equipped with such technology and direct it wherever the controllers wished it to go. Some experts contended that flying electronic command centers—Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft—can perform the same function as a ground station.

Other news items that reinforce the idea that electronically captured planes were used on 9/11 include the tape of Osama bin Laden made public by the CIA in late 2001, in which he revealed that some, if not all, of the hijackers did not realize they were on a suicide mission. This could also explain the Boston reports that the hijackers spent their last night drinking heavily and looking for hookers.

More common-sense reasoning was advanced in an article by Carol A. Valentine, curator of the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum. She wrote: “Put yourself in the shoes of the masterminds of Operation 911. The attacks had to be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. The masterminds couldn't afford to take needless chances. Years ago I saw a local TV news reporter interview a New York mugger about the occupational hazards of his trade…If a freelance New York mugger realized the unpredictable nature of human behavior, surely the pros who pulled this job off must have known the same truth. Yet we are asked to believe that the culprits took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew and four sets of passengers—armed with (depending on the news reports you read) ‘knives,’ ‘plastic knives’ and ‘box cutters’. Given the crazy and unpredictable nature of humans, why would they try this bold plan when they were so poorly armed?

“A lady's handbag—given the weight of the contents most women insist on packing—is an awesome weapon. I know, I have used mine in self defense. Are we to believe that none of the women had the testosterone to knock those flimsy little weapons out of the hijackers’ hands? And what of the briefcases most men carry? Thrown, those briefcases can be potent weapons. Your ordinary everyday New York mugger would never take the chances that our culprits took.

“Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been ‘trained to handle a hijacking.’ She knew not to let anyone in the cockpit. She knew to tell the hijacker that she didn't have a key and would have to call the pilots. None of her training mattered.” [This was reported in the article “On flight 77: ‘Our Plane Is Being Hijacked’,” The Washington Post, September 12, 2001]

“That's right, the Washington Post for once is telling the whole truth. Heidenberger's training didn't matter, the pilots’ training didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't matter, the mens’ briefcases didn't matter. The masterminds of Operation 911 knew that whatever happened aboard those flights, the control of the planes was in their hands. Even if the crew and passengers fought back, my hypothesis is that they could not have regained control of the planes, for the planes were being controlled by Global Hawk technology.”

Another new piece of information raises serious questions concerning the official story of Muslim hijackers taking over Flight 77, which reportedly struck the Pentagon. According to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a growing organization of several hundred aviation professionals from around the world who analyze data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concerning the 9/11 attacks. These professionals state such data does not support the government story. Rob Balsamo, a commercial airline pilot and co-founder of the aviation organization, said, “When I started my research, I said to myself, I am going to do everything in my power to figure out and back up the official story, the government's story—the government fairy tale, I now call it—so I can have faith and believe in my government. We have gotten to the point where I haven't been able to find anything to confirm the government's story.”

One of the most eyebrow-raising facts recently found by this group came from data decoded in late 2009 showing that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have occurred as reported. A data parameter labeled “FLT DECK DOOR”, confirmed by cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the NTSB through a Freedom Of Information Act, indicated that the cockpit door was never opened during flight.

“On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 a.m. Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11 in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, [his] wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, ‘…all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers…’”

The group's website posed the question, “However, according to flight data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?”

Also concerning Flight 77, the Washington Post noted, “Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious.” This same story noted, “But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from the controller's screens, the sources said.”

As previously noted and as detailed in the Appendix, it is quite possible that the plane executing this amazing maneuver was not Flight 77, but actually a fighter jet ordered to buzz the Pentagon moments after the building was rocked by an explosion.

However, at least one Internet source said this was proof that the plane had been electronically captured because software with built-in safety programs would not have allowed such a maneuver. But the software could have been overridden if the craft was taken over electronically as the outside capture would have negated the airliner's safety software.

A news story has already been cited about the suspected pilot of Flight 77, Hani Hanjour, who reportedly had flown so poorly in a flight test just weeks before 9/11 that he was rejected for a small plane rental at a suburban airport. Another news article also pointed out that Hanjour had trained for a few months in Scottsdale, Arizona, but did not finish the course “because instructors felt he was not capable.”

Mohamed Atta and Marwan-al-Shehhi, two other hijackers suspected of flying planes, also were reported to be mediocre-to-poor pilots. One flight instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage 1 rating test. In addition, suspected hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar both were sent packing from Sorbi's Flying Club in San Diego. “Their English was horrible and their mechanical skills were even worse,” commented one flight instructor. “It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car.”

Could a capture by Global Hawk and NFERS technology explain why none of the recordings from either air traffic controllers or the cockpit recorders have been made available to the public? Some reports claimed the tapes were blank. It could also explain how the transponders in all four captured aircraft were switched off nearly simultaneously, a most unlikely event if the planes were truly taken by different persons at different times.

According to some, an electronic capture of the flight control systems would have prevented any normal recordings. Others argue that the recordings were sequestered to prevent the public from hearing how the crews were unable to control their planes.

Investigator Vialls offered this explanation of why the cockpit voice recorder did not send a warning of the hijacking via their transponders. “Technically, a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique ‘identity’ for each aircraft, essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft.

“Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run ‘piggy backs’ a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special ‘I have been hijacked’ transponder code. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground.”

Journalist Joe Vialls said one big reason why electronic capture of jetliners cannot be admitted is the billions of dollars required to replace the flight control systems, an expense the already hard-pressed airlines cannot afford. “The most innovative anti-hijacking tool in the American arsenal has now become the biggest known threat to American national security,” he lamented.

One bit of evidence which added strength to the electronic capture theory of the 9/11 aircraft concerned the very real Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post, built for the US Air Force on a Boeing 747-200 frame. The four flying command centers—at least one is on alert at all times—were created for survivability in the event of a nuclear attack The first were produced in 1973 but the first upgraded version, the Boeing E-4B, did not become operational until 1979. According to promotional material, the Boeing E-4B is designed to survive a nuclear attack or an electromagnetic pulse with its systems intact. The craft is capable of operating with a crew of 48 to 112 people, the largest crew of any aircraft in US Air Force history. In a test flight for endurance, the aircraft remained airborne and fully operational for more than 35 hours.

“The $250-million-dollar aircraft has all of the advanced electronics needed for worldwide communication,” explained Mark H. Gaffney, an author and environmentalist who was the principal organizer of the first Earth Day at Colorado State University in April 1970. “If Air Force One can be accurately described as a flying White House, then, the E-4B is a substitute Pentagon. The plane's electronics cover the full radio spectrum, from extremely low frequency (ELF) to [ultra] high frequency (UHF), [which] enables the E-4B to communicate with all US military commands, worldwide, including tactical and strategic forces, naval ships, planes, nuclear-armed missiles, even submarines. In short, the E-4B is a fully equipped communications platform and can serve as an airborne command center for all US military forces in a national crisis. The plane carries its own electrical generating plant to power its electronic hardware, which is also shielded against the damaging electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects generated by nuclear explosions. Even the plane's white color is a design feature not simply cosmetic. Its purpose is to help the E-4B survive in a nuclear battlefield by reflecting heat away from the plane.”

What has the Boeing E-4B got to do with 9/11?

The morning of the 9/11 attacks, a large white four-engined aircraft, closely resembling an E-4B, was seen and photographed over both Manhattan and Washington. In his 2003 book Black Ice, author Dan Verton, a former Marine intelligence officer and senior writer for Computerworld, identified this aircraft as an E-4B taking part in the 2001 operational exercise “Global Guardian.” Verton wrote that the E-4B took off from “an airfield outside of the nation's capital” carrying both civilian and military officials who were participating in the wargame exercise. He added the military exercise involved “the use and testing of the aircraft's various advanced technology and communications equipment.”

According to Joe Dejka writing in the Omaha World-Herald in 2002, military briefers told him the “Global Guardian” exercise was “in full swing” at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He also wrote, after noting that three E-4Bs were based at Offutt AFB, that aboard one of the three planes was Brent Scowcroft, then chairman of the Federal Advisory Committee [the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB)], along with other committee members there to observe Global Guardian as well as attend the ninth annual Buffett Classic golf tournament. He said military authorities “canceled the exercise after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, but all three of the E-4Bs remained in the air.”

Shortly after his 1:50 p.m. arrival at Offut AFB, President Bush convened a secured video-link national security meeting during which then-CIA Director George Tenet stated he was virtually certain that Osama bin Laden and his network were behind the attacks as only al Qaeda had the capability of conducting such a well-coordinated operation. Tenet also said that intelligence monitoring had overheard a number of known bin Laden operatives congratulating each other after the strikes.

Reportedly, the Global Guardian exercise was canceled at the time the second hijacked plane struck the South Tower of the WTC. But by Verton's account, it was only at the time of the Pentagon attack that the E-4B launched near Washington was ordered to stop the exercise. Why then this half hour discrepancy in times and was the white plane over the Pentagon the same E-4B?

Author Gaffney is convinced it was. Citing news reports from CNN’s senior White House correspondent John King and correspondent Kate Snow mentioning the white plane, Gaffney also noted that ABC anchor Peter Jennings mentioned during the news coverage, “…the White House is certainly, certainly been very heavily defended. And this plane circling the White House adds to the trauma that people are feeling today, but we have no idea precisely what that means.” NBC’s Katie Couric reported, “And in the most surreal of this morning's scenes here at the White house, a white plane, a very big jet, was flying an unusual pattern near the White House, over Lafayette Park, very slowly. It made one circle, and then we have not seen it since. There was a lot of concern about what that plane might be. But, again, it's only speculation, but most people say that since flights have been cleared from US airspace, and it was a totally white plane, looked unusual to all of us, that it was a government plane of some kind.”

Linda Brookhart, then vice president of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, was in Washington that morning for a conference in the Executive Office Building located next to the White House. She snapped a clear photograph of the large white plane with her Pentax camera.

After matching US news footage, plus film from the Discovery Channel's program “The Flight That Fought Back,” a film clip from the Spanish Telemundo network and Brookhart's photo, Gaffney stated, “[I]n the video the plane makes a banking turn. The angle is fortunate, because it brought the plane's unique features and markings into plain view. There can be no doubt as to the plane's identity. The aircraft belonged to the US Air Force. Moreover, this was no ordinary plane. It was an E-4B, the US military's most advanced electronics platform. Even a casual comparison shows that the still-shot from the docudrama matches an official photo of the E-4B from a USAF website. There can be no mistake.”

He added, “The clincher, however, is the ‘bump’ directly behind the bulging 747 cockpit. It is clearly discernible in both photos. No other plane has this piggy-backed appendage. It is unique to the E-4B, and is integral to the plane's military role as an airborne command center. The appendage contains a communication satellite dish and perhaps other advanced electronic hardware. In fact, this is the same plane that Linda Brookhart photographed outside the White House. Although her vantage point was not ideal—Linda was standing in the street looking almost straight up when she snapped the shot—nonetheless, a careful inspection shows that the plane in her photo is an E-4B… [T]he aircraft has four engines and all of the characteristics of a Boeing 747. In addition to the white color, which is also a match, there is another crucial detail that positively identifies the airplane…[T]he tiny blue spot near the rear of the aircraft. Several close-ups of an E-4B clearly show that this blue spot is simply the place where the blue stripes painted on the fuselage come together at the rear of the aircraft. This same blue spot can also be seen in the still-shot from the Telemundo network. No mistake. It's the same plane.

“This is the only place on the 747 fuselage where the E-4B’s otherwise conspicuous blue stripes are visible, from beneath. No other airplane has this combination of features. Linda explained to me that at the time of the evacuation she believed the White House was the target of the attack. She snapped the picture before the towering plume of smoke became visible at the Pentagon, which suggests that the E-4B was already circling at the time of the Pentagon strike. Linda later contacted the FBI about her photograph. After she developed the film an agent came by her office to pick up a copy. But she never heard back. Nor did the 9/11 Commission ask her to testify. In fact, they never even contacted her.”

That a solitary large white aircraft, apparently a Boeing E-4B, was circling over prohibited Washington airspace at the time of the Pentagon strike and that a similar craft was seen over New York at the time of the WTC destruction led some researchers to suspect that this flying electronic command craft may have played some role in the events of 9/11, perhaps even remotely controlling the captured airliners. The fact that the Air Force, Secret Service and FAA all have denied any knowledge of this mysterious over flight in the face of the news accounts, videos and photographs, has only increased the suspicions of those searching for 9/11 truth. Gaffney voiced a sentiment echoed by thousands of Americans when he stated, “Without a genuine investigation, we will probably never learn the true role that the E-4B played on September 11.”

The idea of the hijacked aircraft may have been remotely controlled was echoed by Donn de Grand Pre, a retired US Army colonel and author of Barbarians Inside the Gates. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Grand Pre, along with several commercial and military pilots, participated in a marathon discussion of the events. He acknowledged that the US, Russia, China, and Israel all possess Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft that “have the capability to utilize electromagnetic pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft, and then, fly them by remote control.” “The 9/11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for ‘combined UN activity’ (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be the ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government,” he added.

Responding to the accounts of eyewitnesses in Washington who said they clearly saw a large commercial airplane flying low over the city moments before the Pentagon was struck, some researchers, based on flight data, believe that an airliner did fly over the city drawing the attention of those on the ground, but did not hit the Pentagon.

According to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, data from Flight 77 showed an altitude of 180 feet. “This altitude has been determined to reflect pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg [inches of mercury used to determine barometric pressure] on the altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA [Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport] at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL [Mean Sea Level], 75-foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations),” stated the pilots’ site. They added, “The aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the five frames where you see something cross the Pentagon lawn at level attitude. The five frames of video captured by the parking gate cam are in direct conflict with the aircraft flight data recorder information released by the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board].” Furthermore, the recently-released data shows Flight 77 on a different flight path than stated in the official narrative, one in which it could not have knocked down the street light poles so well depicted in that day's photos.

This discrepancy adds weight to the theory that a jumbo jet did fly over the Pentagon, as stated by several witnesses, but did not strike the building, an event apparently claimed to have been seen by only a few persons. But this event would have been recorded by approximately 82 security cameras trained on the structure. The videotapes from the cameras were confiscated by the FBI that day and have never been released to the public with the exception of a few frames which show an explosion at the Pentagon but do not show a large jet plane. One theory—keep in mind there has never been truthful in-depth investigation—is that a large airliner indeed was flown over Washington drawing attention to its low pass over the Pentagon. This craft then perhaps banked quickly and flew eastward along the Potomac River and until lost from sight. This over-flight was timed to coincide with bombs inside the Pentagon and/or a missile strike on the west wall.