Hijacking history in the US and "Home Run" remote control = hijacking impossible.

[Edx]

Hijacking history in the US and "Home Run" remote control = hijacking impossible.

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.

Its also silly to say that that arabs couldn't possibly have hijacked a plane.

Actually in the twenty years preceding the World Trade Center demolition there were exactly zero successful hijackings in the United States. I checked the statistics, there were two or three attempts, all foiled. Ronald Reagan declared a "war on terror", if you're old enough to remember that. Under his reign, a system called "Home Run" was implemented so that all civilian passenger jets could be commandeered from the ground by remote control, making hijacking from the cockpit a literal impossibility.

I have my own issues and potential criticisms such as previous hijackings wanted something rather than to just use the plane to fly into buildings... but I would be interested in what others can say about this.

I'm going to call bull**** on Home Run, if that were true someone somewhere would have mentioned it by now that actually 911 should have been impossible because of it.

 

[TK0001]

If this is true, then the Payne Stewart incident should be re-investigated as a murder.

 

[DavidJames]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.




I have my own issues and potential criticisms such as previous hijackings wanted something rather than to just use the plane to fly into buildings... but I would be interested in what others can say about this.

I'm going to call bull**** on Home Run, if that were true someone somewhere would have mentioned it by now that actually 911 should have been impossible because of it.

Took 30 seconds to find this

March 17, 1970: Eastern Air Lines Shuttle Flight 1320, carrying passengers from Newark to Boston was hijacked around 7:30 P.M.

but that's really irrelevant since "it never happened before" is the argument of a 6 year old.

As for "home run", that's easy as well, just tell him to prove his claim.

 

[MikeW]

I'm going to call bull**** on Home Run, if that were true someone somewhere would have mentioned it by now that actually 911 should have been impossible because of it.

They have, just a very long time ago. Google for "Joe Vialls" "Home Run"

 

[Piscivore]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.

1. That depends on the definition of "successful". If it means "seizing control of an aircraft", there have been many examples of that happening. If it means the incidents ending with the hijackers getting what they wanted and not being killed or arrested, that leaves just the 9/11 guys (for whom dying = accomplishing their goals) and maybe DB Cooper.

2. There were a lot more than two or three attempted.

3. I call BS on that.

 

[DGM]

Well, I'm most certainly old enough to remember Regan's presidency and I call his idea bat crap crazy. He didn't offer any proof of this "home run" did he.

 

[Edx]

Thanks for the replies so far:

I just googled some more thanks to Mikes search term suggestions and found this lovelly hit:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html

and

http://www.911-strike.com/remote.htm

Truthers debunking truthers.

I do love it when that happens.

 

[BigAl]

In a argument with a truther on the Conspiracy Science forums:
http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/zarathustra-peterjoseph-speaks/page/3

A guy called Plautus Satire is trying to claim:

1. There have been zero successful hijackings in the US.

2. Only two or three were attempted, both were foiled.

3. Reagan developed a system called ""Home Run" that can remote control planes from the ground making hijacking impossible.

What is the status of hands-off landing with the aid of equipment located at the airport? I recall reading reports of projects and I've seen Twoofers confuse landing on a pre-programmed runway with the general case of flying on remote control.

 

[MikeW]

Anyone pushing Home Run is placing a great deal of credibility in Joe Vialls, and really he doesn't deserve it. A UK example - he was the person who pushed the theory that Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman weren't killed by Ian Huntley, and there were far more likely suspects in nearby American airbases (here). What a *********** idiot.

If you're not in the UK that won't mean a lot, but take a look at the Web Archive of his site, there's plenty more lunacy available.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

What is the status of hands-off landing with the aid of equipment located at the airport? I recall reading reports of projects and I've seen Twoofers confuse landing on a pre-programmed runway with the general case of flying on remote control.

Well I have no doubt thats its technically possible given that they can fly a tv missile through a door and with todays fly by wire aircraft (don't think a 767 is fly by wire) it would much easier as the controls are no longer mechanically linked to the control surfaces etc. So, yes, it is possible but since we know from Jammos "proof" that there were no planes..........

it would however be a lot easier to simply board a plane with a few guys with box cutters and fake bombs...............

 

[Debaser]

Based on the modus operandi of pretty much every pre-9/11 hijacking*, i.e.,

Use weapons/threat of violence to take control of passengers and thereby aircraft;
Land at airport of choice;
Use threat of violence against passengers to gain concessions from authorities.

Where does the ability to remotely control an aircraft provide a benefit?




* This is based on middle-eastern type hijackings. The 'fly me to Havana' type is something else.

 

[Edx]

He has written back saying the following:

"Whether or not people think it's (Home Run) absurd, it's a fact. All civilian passenger jets in the United States are equipped with this system, it was integrated into their designs on the drawing board, and it was a sensible move, to be honest. You don't want passengers to have the capacity to take over and fly the plane. Not to put this system in place would have been negligence of the highest order. Remote control technology existed in the forties, it's not magical, it's not mystical, it's not science fiction, it't science fact. I, myself, owned a remotely controlled airplane in the seventies. This technology was mature enough then to operate in miniature inside a toy plane so clearly it would have been possible and desirable to install such systems in passenger jets. As I stated, it would be supremely negligent NOT to do so. Is your government supremely negligent? This is the other side of the coincidence theorists' coins, they'd have you believe everything is due to coincidence and incompetence, that nineteen "terrorists" are able to outwit the entire United States military and state department. It's absurd on its face, and quite frankly I'm amazed you would put yourself in such a position of intellectual weakness by arguing in favor of it."

 

[Pardalis]

His only proof is that he owned a miniature remote controlled plane in the '70s?

 

[Pardalis]

possible and desirable to install such systems in passenger jets. As I stated, it would be supremely negligent NOT to do so.

I don't think so. It could easily interfere with the plane's electronics, and it is very possible that this system could be tampered with. As much as this guy wants remote controlled airplanes to be a possibility, he should also consider the possibility of remote controlled hijackings, which is reason enough not to implement the system in the first place.

 

[TK0001]

He has written back saying the following:

I, myself, owned a remotely controlled airplane in the seventies.

Wow.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"Not to put this system in place would have been negligence of the highest order."

Strange that no-one from Boeing/Airbus/BAC etc etc etc has ever come forward and said they designed, built or installed such a system.

 

[DavidJames]

He has written back saying the following:

Here is how I would respond. Either provide evidence or STFU. Period, end of sentence, end of dialog.

This is really simple and I'm not sure why (actually I have a guess) people don't keep it simple. They make claim, they provide evidence. Really simple.

 

[TK0001]

It's absurd on its face, and quite frankly I'm amazed you would put yourself in such a position of intellectual weakness by arguing in favor of it.

The more I read this, the more my blood boils. What a horse's ass.

 

[rwguinn]

He has written back saying the following:

so?
I myself own several remote controlled airplanes, ranging from a J-3 cub to a P-51 mustang to an A-4 Skyhawk. There is a whole organization in the US dedicated to them. Worldwide, there are even more--google "FAI Model Aircraft"

 

[dudalb]

His only proof is that he owned a miniature remote controlled plane in the '70s?

And I thought the Twoofers who cited their skills on the Microsoft Flight Simulator as evidence were bad....

This guy needs to be stundied.