The most venerable means of transmitting control inputs from a plane's cockpit to its various aerodynamic control surfaces (rudder, ailerons, etc.) is via a system of cables, i.e. "aircraft cables." With the introduction of huge planes during and after W.W.II, unassisted human arms could no longer provide the force needed to actuate proportionately huge control surfaces, and so hydraulic assist devices and fully hydraulic control systems were developed. The introduction of autopilots and landing guidance systems over the next three decades layered yet another 'control system' over this one, an electronic layer capable of manipulating the hydraulics directly and thus flying the plane on its own. In the 757- and 767-series planes boarded by "the hijackers," Boeing expanded this layer enormously, making it much more sophisticated and integral to the continuous operation of these planes. For one thing, it continuously monitors such things as attitude, acceleration, turn rates, etc., and if necessary can assert exclusive control of the hydraulics at any time, modifying or even overriding pilot decisions that would otherwise result in drastic maneuvers, inappropriate for passenger service. Though meant to provide an added margin of safety in the event of gross pilot error, this arrangement introduces an ominous new dimension: in a very real sense, the humans on the flight deck have only tenuous control of flaps, rudder, etc.; the computer, the arbiter between the two, allows them direct control only on it's own immutable terms. If the computer can override the pilot some of the time, a potential exists for it to override the pilot ALL of the time. This is a vulnerable arrangement, as anyone who has dealt with a virus should know. In other words, the advancing dependency on avionic interfaces has brought with it an advancing potential for the total electronic co-optation of those interfaces. As they have grown exponentially in complexity, so too has the number of entry points by which such co-optation might be effected. All that was needed was for technologists to devise a "back door"...

Enter the US government and its defense contractors, who began joint development of remote flight control and flight circumvention technology at least two decades ago, using the full force of their virtually infinite R&D resources. The existence of these programs, and of the resulting technology, was verified soon after 9-11 by a panel of commercial and military pilots participating in an independent inquiry (16).

The existence of such technology IN ANY FORM raises intriguing questions/possibilities about 9-11: 1) could the planes have been hijacked via this technology alone? 2) Were they? 3) Remote hijacking and on-board hijacking are not mutually exclusive scenarios; if there were actual human hijackers on those planes, their plot may have been remotely co-opted by another party they knew nothing about, leaving them as horrified as anyone when the planes took control of themselves and banked straight into buildings.

Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea that the override functionality of the planes' computers was somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn into the second tower. According to official information, the plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems. Since that flight school they attended in Venice, Fla. probably didn't offer a course titled "Hot-dog Maneuvers with Airliners 101," they must have possessed these abilities already, so why would they have bothered with flight lessons at all? Any benefit they realized in terms of understanding new control layouts would have been at the cost of increased exposure, thus endangering their mission. On the other hand, if they were as inexperienced as the presstitutes tell us ("I just want to learn how to steer"), they couldn't possibly have flown the planes this way at all, which means someone else must have.

However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention occurred on those planes, a possibility that any credible investigation would hardly ignore. All the more so because the necessary hardware isn't just a cockamamie theory: a fully developed, totally programmable remote flight control platform actually exists. Suggestively named the "Flight Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation of Rosslyn, Virginia, which maintains web pages devoted to the FTS and various subsystems:

A system overview:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

The transmitter hardware:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS

Related software:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/MkVSW

The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.

Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to 9-11. On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

see for yourself:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

To identify the expansionist motive behind the "9-11 Wars," one need look no further than this document. Echoing Ziggy Brzezinski's thoughts in "The Grand Chessboard," the authors identify the Persian Gulf / Central Asian region as the world's greatest geopolitical prize, and recommend that decisive control of this region be made a top strategic priority.

The remote control scenario also neatly punctures the 'yada-yada objection' always employed by conspiracy theory critics: "It couldn't have happened that way, because too many people would have known, and someone would blab..." In fact, the most sensitive part of this plot would be that of anticipating or enabling nineteen flesh-and-blood "hijackers," and yet this part of the scenario is all but universally accepted. Nineteen men backed by a larger organization schemed to get on those planes and take control of them, and then they did; everyone knows they did because CNN has stated this "fact" about ten thousand times and counting. As for exactly WHICH organization did the backing, well, there's a saying about 'dead men' ...

Once the patsies were in position, the rest of this scenario -- the "really unbelievable part" -- could have been carried off in its entirety by a tiny team wielding extravagant technical skills and multimillion-dollar equipment. No larger conspiracy is necessary. As for the apparent complicity of the entire government and media, this is mostly just cynical opportunism and jello-brained obedience rising to the occasion -- a response easily anticipated by the real conspirators, for whom history provides a never-ending parade of examples on which to base such expectations.

Mind you, this is not to say that remote circumvention is definitely what happened. On its face, this scenario is wildly improbable. Speaking of improbable, what about four airliners being taken over simultaneously and used as missiles? Since this actually happened, we have no choice but to consider fantastic scenarios, and since the official scenario is itself an unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory," competing scenarios should also receive serious attention. Our reluctance to question official doctrine on this matter is a symptom of the societal role most of us have been bred and trained for: to be ever-faithful hounds, tails thumping the floor as we contentedly slorp the hand of class authority. Such credulity also becomes inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable: if someone in Bush's position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as gut-wrenchingly horrible as 9-11, then everything we believe about this country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish nonsense...

Most people simply don't have the guts to go there.

Given a desperate enough need to sustain the childish belief in government-as-benevolent-father, a person will adapt that belief to any circumstance. The behavioral end result can resemble courage; indeed, we are taught to regard it as the DEFINITION of courage. Actually, it's one of cowardice's darkest moments. Even a casual examination of Nazi Germany, where this phenomenon was rampant, will drive this point home.

It's almost funny, the way people readily see the threat of technological circumvention presented by Diebold's electronic voting machines, yet when the subject switches to the "Flight Termination System," which is every bit as real, and to the exactly parallel possibilities it represents vis-a-vis 9-11, they suddenly retreat into profound and combative denial. It's as if a threshold has been crossed into a realm of possibilities too vile to entertain, so they simply don't. Never mind that this country's operatives have been traveling the world, perpetrating similar horrors, for all of the past century. Rather than acknowledge the possibility of a unifying pattern, Joe Average would much rather 'shoot the messenger.'

Every so often, such people establish a new high-water mark for cowardice and facultative stupidity, and the present is definitely one of those times. After all, the official 9-11 scenario they cling to with such desperate faith comes from only one source: the Western "intelligence community" -- the most brazen, systematic, resourceful, and interlocked association of habitual liars this world has ever seen. As should have been made clear by the 'British dossier' scandal of last winter, the credibility of this bunch goes past zero into the negative: pending airtight proof, anything they say should be reflexively deemed a lie. You may remember that MI5 also provided the identities of "the 19 hijackers" -- information that soon also became quite suspect. At least six of the hijackers, possibly as many as nine, are still alive in the Middle East -- a pretty good alibi, considering. Several of these ex-suspects had their passports or other IDs stolen from them over the years, and it's entirely possible that all 19 hijackers had stolen identities, meaning they could have come from anywhere, or been absent altogether. The US media was pretty slack about acknowledging this at the time, and since then has dropped this ball entirely (17).

Rather than allow the "intelligence community" to render every detail of our comprehension on this matter, we would be much wiser to carefully identify and discard every assumption they hand us.