Prelude 9/11 morning Flight 11 hijacked Flight 175 hijacked WTC 1 hit Flight 77 hijacked WTC 2 hit Flight 93 hijacked Pentagon hit WTC 2 collapses Flight 93 crashes WTC 1 collapses WTC 7 collapses Epilogue

Påstand

One or more of the planes were remotely controlled0.

Background

The planes were supposedly not hijacked but overtaken electronically from a secret command center and directed to their intented targets.

The claim is put forth by Josef Hanji, a leading member of the Danish part of the Truth Movement.

Facts

It is not possible to take control of modern passenger planes without the crew and flight control, particularly not without being discovered1.

Technology
A big portion of an ordinary flight is more or less fully automated, but a captain and his co-pilot will always be able to regain control with any system on board. That is what the pilots are there for, in case a crisis occurs or merely a changed flight schedule1.

All modern passenger planes are equipped with redundant systems. If one system fails, another automatically takes over. This factor alone makes it quite improbable that control can be seized from outside the cockpit. The two types of planes that were used in the terror attack were Boeing 757 and Boeing 767. Despite different designation numbers, it is basically the same plane where internal systems, system configuration, instrumentation, electronics and flight management systems, flight decks, and handling characteristics are alike. A pilot trained for one type can, after relatively brief training, also be approved to fly the other1.

Safety check
When a plane is on the ground, it is checked thoroughly by both technicians on the ground and the pilot himself. It is the pilot’s responsibility to make sure that the condition of the plane is O.K.

Space
All planes are designed as optimal as possible. A plane must not only be able to fly well, it must also be as economically viable as possible. Any addition that increases weight and decreases available space has a negative impact, not just how the plane flies, but especially when it comes to economics. There is no room for extra equipment that can easily be thrown in and hooked up in a moment without anyone noticing it1.

Logic

Time
Even if the above problems should be eliminated, there is a fundamental problem with the claim: There simply is not time to equip the four planes with brand new systems. It cannot be done in those few moments a plane is between flights. This means that it must have been done during a long-term operation where all four planes must have been together, in a secret place, and thus have been out of operation for a prolongued period. There is no evidence of this.

Co-conspirators
If the planes were remotely controlled, there are only two explanations:

  1. The ground personnel and the pilots must have completely overlooked the very big changes in the mechanical systems and instrumentation.
  2. The ground personnel and the pilots must have been part of the conspiracy.

None of the explanations are plausible.

It is quite unlikely that the ground personnel would not have discovered such big changes.

It makes no sense that the four pilots would agree to fly planes they knew would be flown remotely. None of the pilots on the four planes give any indication that they have lost or given over control of the planes. Quite contrary, recordings from all four planes clearly show that the planes were overtaken by force by the hijackers.

If the pilots knew in advance that the planes would be remotely controlled, we are dealing with a scenario where the pilots are willing to commit suicide. In that case, we are alarmingly close to the official account anyway.

Further problems:

  • If the planes were remotely controlled, why fly them so hapharzardly into the Twin Towers?
  • If it were impossible for the pilots to regain control, why have hijackers at all posing as pilots?
  • The claim is jarringly in conflict with another popular claim from conspiracy theorists, namely that the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 (all high-rise steel constructions) did not collapse due to fire, because that type of building had never collapsed by fire before. It had likewise not happened before that planes had been hijacked and flown into high-rises by remote control. Why is that suddenly not a problem in this case2?

Conclusion

The claim is therefore:

  • False
  • Without witnesses
  • Undocumented
  • Self-contradicting

Sources

  1. “Ah, don’t quibble – a remotely controlled plan is a goddamn remotely controlled plane, to call it an “unmanned flying object” is to make it harder for yourself. A remotely controlled plane can easily be manned, all you have to do is to block the manual steering and steer the plane by remote control, or by a tracking system, it is actually quite simep (personally, I believe there was a tracking system with a transmitter in WTC and a reciever on the plane). Whether the plane was manned or not is pure guesswork, we have to admit that we don’t really know. So to say that the plane was unmanned, is in my opinion to draw a hasty conclusion. Of course there was plane fuel in the plane, otherwise it couldn’t fly, but there could easily have been rigged an explosion, since they (in my opinion) knew where the plane would hit, so it looked more dramatic. I have seen some strange videos, where some smoke puffs emerge from the North Tower, when the other plane hits the South Tower, to me it looks like whatever is sprayed from the North Tower makes the fireball turn quickly to black smoke, but that is only a layman’s observation.”
    “Ah, hold nu op med at ordkløve – et fjernstyret fly er da for pokker et fjernstyret fly, at kalde det et “ubemandet flyvende objekt”, er da at gøre det sværere for sig selv. Et fjernstyret fly kan da sagtens være bemandet, man behøver bare at blokkere den manuelle styring og styre flyet ved hjælp af fjernkontrol eller ved hjælp af et sporingssystem, det er faktisk ret simpelt (personligt tror jeg det var et sporingssystem med en sender i WTC og en modtager i flyet). Om flyet var bemandet eller ubemandet er rent gætværk, vi må indrømme at vi faktisk ikke ved det. Så at sige at flyet var ubemandet, er efter min mening at drage en forhastet konklusion. Selvfølgelig var der flybenzin i flyet, ellers kunne det jo ikke flyve, men der kan sagtens have været rigget en eksplosion til, da man jo (efter min mening) vidste hvor flyet ville ramme, så det så mere dramatisk ud. Jeg har set nogen mærkelige videoer, hvor der kommer nogle røgpuffs ud af Nordtårnet, i det det andet fly rammer Sydtårnet, for mig ser det ud som om at det der sprøjtes ud af Nordtårnet, får ildkuglen til hurtigt at blive til sort røg, men det er blot en læmandsbetragtning.”

    “It looks like a swarm of fireflies on a hot summer’s day, ha ha. Planes can also be remotely controlled, and I certainly believe that we are talking about remotely controlled planes and not missiles, since it would simply be too risky with all the witnesses that were in New York, to launch missiles over Manhatten(sic).”
    “Det ligner jo en sværm af ildfluer på en varm sommerdag, ha ha. Fly kan jo også fjernstyres, og jeg tror bestemt at vi taler om fjernstyrede fly og ikke missiler, da det simpelthen vil være for risikofyldt med alle de vidner der befandt sig i New York, at sende misiller ind over Manhatten.”

    Josef Hanji, ledende medlem af den danske afdeling af Sandhedsbevægelsen i11time, 19. oktober 2010

    Remote Control and the 9/11/01 Attack, 911review.com

  2. Remote takeover on 9/11, A Critical Analysis
  3. Highrises on fire have never collapsed

Q & A