excellent information -- especially the radar references:

http://imgur.com/Q4NLCMG

and sourced: http://www.911depository.info/PDFs/NTSB%20Reports/Radar%20Data%20Impact%20Speed%20Study%20AA11%20UA175.pdf

(that's crazy!!)

The speed increased and the angle of the dive as well right up until impact.

That's a motherfuckin smoking gun if there has ever been one

I've never flown a jumbo jet through a metropolitan area but I have it on pretty good authority a skyscraper still is an extremely difficult target to hit. How did they get the angle of attack right?

Wait a second, I though the truther narrative was that the planes were going too fast and thus must have been beefed-up military 767 tanker planes or something?

Now you're saying they were flying at a perfectly legit speed? How does that prove they were "remote controlled?"

I would imagine that the cockpit has all kinds of speed indicators and it shouldn't be that hard for the terrorists to stick to a safe but maximal speed, even if they aren't expert pilots. I would bet there are overspeed alarms of various kinds, too.

Do you think terrorists don't have brains?

The 767 flew consistently on the very edge of its capabilities

Not its "capabilities". It's standardized safety threshold.

and extraodrinary maneuvres.

What's extraordinary about them? Show me these pilots doing an inverted loop, recovering unassisted from stall or flying while missing half of a wing and then we can talk about "extraordinary".

This is impossible for an amateur pilot.

Assumption.

fully consistent with remote control.

Nothing about it is consistent with remote control. There is nothing that suggests remote control. There's no way to glean from any of this there was some sort of remote control involved.

You can go ahead and say "well that was strange". Sure, yeah. Remarkable. But the leap from "that happened in a manner contrary to what is expected" to "remote control" is immense.

The analysis is irrefutable.

You can't state your analysis is irrefutable without backing it up. Simply saying "it's irrefutable" doesn't make it so.

All the data is there

Sure. Let's say all that data about flightpath and speed is correct. So?

So a plane flew at its upper safety limit for a short period of time. Where is the evidence showing this was done through remote control?

Going to your point how did these amateur pilots line up wtc perfectly? (for all intents and purposes)

Given all this information that you take as fact how did they manage to calculate the impact decent into the tower and not over shoot it or to the left or right?

There's no auto pilot for that and it's not as simple as lining up a pistol shot. Both planes hit within ten floors of each other. How did they practice the impacting of the towers? That's not something you just sit down behind a plane and do.

How did they fly back to NYC? They are navigators? They set auto pilot? Why were the proper flight checks followed after they took control?

Anyone who disagrees with you is a shill? That doesn't seem like an intellectually honest position.

a human didn't do it.

You haven't stated why a human could not have done it, and you have not stated that a remote control was capable and did it.

They govt wouldn't have found anyone to commit suicide for them

That's right, they didn't. Those involved acted on their own volition.

also a human couldn't have sustained that level of performance.

Why not? What makes you say this?

The 767 flew consistently on the very edge of its capabilities

The capabilities should, by definition, be higher than the safe design limit. You have been arguing that the 767 flew at the design limit.

This is impossible for an amateur pilot

You will need to demonstrate that.

and fully consistent with remote control.

Please explain how you think a 767-200 could have been successfully remote controlled into the tower.

• What modifications have been made to the 767-200?
• Where is the pilot?
• How does the pilot get telemetry?
• How does the pilot send commands?

"An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

From the rendezvous point [with the drone] the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft will meanwhile continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being [sic] transmitting…a "MAY DAY" message stating he in under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal."~~Operation Northwoods 1962

"An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

From the rendezvous point [with the drone] the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft will meanwhile continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being [sic] transmitting…a "MAY DAY" message stating he in under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal."~~Operation Northwoods 1962

Please explain how you think a 767-200 could have been successfully remote controlled into the tower.

• What modifications have been made to the 767-200?

Just saying "it's been turned into a drone" isn't enough. Be specific. Turning a 767-200 into a drone that has sufficient manoeuvrability to fly it into the Twin Towers is significantly more challenging than turning a random old Cessna.

Where is the pilot?

Not answered.

How does the pilot get telemetry?

Not answered.

How does the pilot send commands?

Not answered other than "radio signal."

Franciswears "Just saying "it's been turned into a drone" isn't enough. Be specific. Turning a 767-200 into a drone that has sufficient manoeuvrability to fly it into the Twin Towers is significantly more challenging than turning a random old Cessna." ???

"Random old Cessna" ???? Where did that come from?

1. They were remotely controlling "civilian AIRLINERS"
2. The word "drone", when used in this instance of aviation, specifically means remotely controlled. Don't split hairs and act like you have no idea what a "drone" aircraft would be.
3. The answers to the rest of your questions would now be moot, as we realize drone means UNMANNED!!!

"Random old Cessna" ???? Where did that come from?

It's an example. Turning a Cessna into a drone is much easier than turning a 767 into a drone.

The answers to the rest of your questions would now be moot, as we realize drone means UNMANNED!!!

Unmanned doesn't mean it doesn't have a pilot. It means the pilot isn't onboard.

This proves the plane was (at the very least) remotely controlled.

You seem to be confused. Nothing you posted suggests, even in the slightest that the plane was remote controlled. You're making that inference on your own with nothing to support it.

All it suggests is that the plane was operating outside of standardized safety specs.

Coincidence? of course not. An amateur pilot could not have sustained performance exactly on the knife edge like that.

This is again an assumption.

You must specify, with supporting information- why this is implausible. Yes it's a jet. Yes it's complicated. Yes flying isn't riding a tricycle. But you can't say "it's not a walk in the park ergo it is absolutely impossible".

The official story is that amateurs performed these maneovers.

Sure.

Obviously thats not true.

How is it untrue? Why?

Only remote control explains it.

Why is the next step after "an amateur did something" a "remote control did something"

I think they're saying that even veterans couldn't perform these maneovers while maintaining, without variance, the highest sub-failure speed possible. All the while, remote controlled flight should be vetted. On first glance, our military has been flying huge aircraft via remote control since the 1950's .

Because we(as a people) tend to look at anything computer controlled/operated as mistake free, very efficient and able to perform tasks/operations/directions etc..precisely and with little to no errors at all.

Operation Northwoods, presented to President Kennedy, was to be used as justification for action against Cuba. Kennedy refused and then removed from Joint Chiefs of staff office the individual that recommended the action.

Remote controlled planes, in the 1960's. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

http://io9.com/5838778/operation-northwoods-the-1960s-government-plan-to-fake-terrorist-attacks-on-the-us

Only remote control explains it.

This is a non-sequitur.

Other possible explanations might be:

• the amateurs were 'lucky'
• the pilots weren't amateurs
• the pilots might have been another member of the crew or passengers (or unknown party) who did have experience
• autopilot or other on-board automated controller performed the maneuver
• the plane wasn't a normal plane
• the footage is fake
• aliens

All you have shown is that it's unlikely that amateurs performed the maneuvers. You haven't disproved it. And you certainly haven't provided any evidence of remote control. Any of the above could be equally valid alternative hypotheses.

I'm not saying I believe you or any of the other possible explanations, just that your argument (which is otherwise good) falls down at this final leap to 'remote control'.

Why is it the only explanation? You haven't said.

I read it perfectly well. There is, unfortunately, a hole in your logic, which I will attempt to explain:

You present a good case for why this couldn't be done by an amateur untrained pilot. Fine, no problem there. I think a lot of people, including pilots, will agree with you.

OK. So if it wasn't an amateur untrained pilot, we must look for another explanation. OK, let's do that.

There could be all manner of possible explanations from the simple to the outlandish. Probably some of the silly ones we can dismiss out-of-hand, e.g. it was aliens, the devil, etc. OK. Fair enough.

So let's pick a reasonable one. Let's say our hypothesis is that it's a skilled pilot operating by remote control.

How can we show that this is the only explanation? Well, technically, we can't, but maybe we can probably do so to a level of beyond reasonable doubt. Let's compare it to some other reasonable possibilities.

There are a number of alternative theories that are indistinguishable from this hypothesis (given the argument so far)....

Remember: our working hypothesis is that it is a pilot working by remote control (and your argument is that it MUST be remote control of some kind), so for each one of the following we must be able to provide some evidence or argument that remote control is the better hypothesis... if we can't tell the difference based on our argument and evidence so far, then our hypothesis can't be the ONLY possibility.

So here are some reasonable alternatives.. does the argument you've presented so far actually discount them?...

1. It could be a skilled pilot on the plane... The US gov lied about the pilots. Maybe they did receive proper training, and the US gov doesn't want to admit this. How can you tell the difference between a skilled pilot on the plane itself, or a skilled pilot operating by remote control? What is in your argument that shows that? e.g. is there some evidence that remote control was used specifically, and it couldn't be a pilot on board? You don't seem to provide that in your argument, so there is no way to distinguish this hypothesis from our hypothesis of 'pilot by remote control'. So both must be equally valid, without further evidence or argument.
2. An advanced automatic pilot / guidance system on board the plane. This is arguably even better than a skilled pilot. An advance cruise missile-type guidance system could out-perform skilled pilots to perfectly replicate such maneuvers at speeds a pilot may be unused to, and keep the plane stable in unusual conditions with reactions faster than any human. What evidence or argument have you presented that means that remote control is more likely? None. So how can you disprove the hypothesis of an on-board guidance system vs 'pilot by remote control'? You haven't presented any, so both must be considered equally valid at this point.
3. Advanced guidance system operating by remote control. Similar to hypothesis 2. Now, you might say, well yes, it could be that (after all, you just argued for 'remote control', not necessarily by a pilot). But consider Occam's Razor: If an advanced guidance system over remote control is one hypothesis, and we can't tell the difference between an advanced on-board guidance system and an advanced remote-control guidance system (as shown above), then why pick the remote-control one, which is the more complex hypothesis? Occam's Razor would guide us away from remote control when deciding between the two in the absence of any other evidence or argument. There must be some piece of evidence or explanation as to why you prefer remote control, rather than on-board in this scenario. But you never provided it.

You see what I'm getting at? You just go straight to your preferred hypothesis, and state without any evidence or argument that it is the ONLY possibility. It's certainly a reasonable solution, but you say it's the ONLY one, which is a very strong statement, but don't provide any strong argument for it. You simply don't say why it could only be remote control.

You don't explore other options. You say:

It can't be X, therefore it must be Y.

That is a logical fallacy. "It can only be Y" (remote control) does NOT follow logically from "Not X" (unskilled amateur pilot). This is basic propositional logic.

What about Z, P, Q, R, A, B, C, ... ? Which you haven't considered in your argument. Why Y and not Q? (It doesn't even matter what Y and Q are -- the fallacy is apparent symbolically.)

Just because you can't think of an alternative (fallacy of 'lack of imagination' -- no offence intended, that's just what this logical fallacy is called) or you just can't see how the other explanations could have possibly happened (fallacy of 'personal incredulity'), doesn't mean that your hypothesis is correct.

Thank you, seeing logic used on reddit is a rare thing.