Sunday, May 4, 2008


Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
old undated piece written in 2005, posted late '06, and re-posted January 1 '08

Note 5/4/08: I haven't revised this like I planned to a few months back. See comments below for some important updates I haven't digested yet. Now it's doubly-deserving of updates and soon. Ish.
In all the arguments about whether it was a military weapon (missile) or a comandeered civilian transport (Boeing 757) that hit the Pentagon, one point sometimes missed is that a missile and a plane are designed on very similar principles, both are propelled with fuel and streamlined to fly great distances through the air. In fact a plane basically is a missile designed to make soft landings and to blow up as little as possible if it fails in this. But if taken in the wrong hands, as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WWII knew, its fuel becomes explosive, its chassis piercing and in a pinch it can become a missile in a more literal sense, or at least a large flying Molotov cocktail. It’s not the best weapon but one that hijackers have been able to seize before, if previously minus the suicidal imagination to make that leap. The official story is riddled with references to the 9/11 hijackers' use of the planes as guided missiles, yet nitwits argue that in the midst of a suicide hijacking attack, on a clear and bright morning in front of hundreds of drivers stuck in gridlock traffic they break out an actual Cruise missile to strike the Pentagon. This is idiocy, this is why I never wanted to read Meyssan.

So a plane is a missile, and if Boeing jets really were responsible, as nearly all evidence indicates, another key question is not entirely resolved – who was piloting the plane. The bolder revisionists remove the terrorists from the scene and are left with the chilling possibility that remote control was used. But officially, this is impossible. The State Department, refuting conspiracist claims in 2005, stated flatly as an evident fact “Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled.” [1]

A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press via Cooperative Research]
But it is not actually impossible by a long shot - let’s turn to Raytheon, a big player in the military-industrial complex involved in high-tech projects like the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), a landing guidance system for military aircraft. They worked with the Air Force in testing and development for JPALS, carried out at Holloman AFB, New Mexico from June to September 2001. [2] The system was completed just before the 9/11 attack and publicized just after; in an October 1 press release they boasted of their role in “the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military [GPS] landing system.” On August 25, a FedEx Express 727-200 landed using “a Raytheon-developed military ground station.” [3] They explained details, which included a total of six successful pilotless takeoffs and landings of their specially rigged Boeing airliner. This was done just seventeen days before someone helped four Boeing jets jointly and precisely approach and “land” in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a strip mine in Pennsylvania.

JPALS was a military project but designed to be “fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology,” Raytheon explained, and they were also involved with this, under contract with the FAA. [4] For this they worked on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), designed to improve on the GPS guidance system and bring it up to the FAA’s standards for safety and accuracy. [5] By merging JPALS with these GPS-refiners, a nation-wide, extremely precise matrix for automated landings – that is remote-controlled flight – of distressed civilian airliners was a real possibility- if still officially years off.

Raytheon published the fact only on October 1, just four days after President Bush announced at a speech in Chicago “we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe [...] including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.” [6] A company official noted in the release their dedication to providing satellite-guided landing systems for “the flying public,” and their pride in being “part of the success achieved this summer during JPALS testing at Holloman.” [7] And proud they should be, that’s some mighty fine timing.

This series of Raytheon-centered events is only one illustration of the possibility of remote controlled flight, and the curious timing in fact makes the whole thing a little too obvious for my liking, possibly another honeypot set up in advance to distract us from real leads. But even if this angle should ever be conclusively proved unrelated to shadow 9/11, it does help remind us that remote control aircraft has been a reality for the military since the late 1950s at least, and civil airliners have been being remotely landed in foggy weather for over two decades. Most disturbing are the allegations – tentative at best but still possible - of secret FAA/NORAD systems of remote control built in to all (American) civilian Flight Control Systems, allegedly dating back as far as the 1970s. [8] Though if such a system exists - and Raytheon’s work for the FAA proves it was feasible by mid-2001 anyway - it has not been proved and has been kept thoroughly secret.

[1] United states of America State Department. Identifying misinformation. Thierry Meyssan: French Conspiracy Theorist Claims No Plane Hit Pentagon.” Created: 28 Jun 2005 Updated: 28 Jun 2005 Accessed November 5, 2005 at:
[2] “Raytheon and Air Force Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Precision Landing System.” Raytheon press release. October 1, 2001. Accessed October 28, 2005 at:,+2001
[3] See [2].
[4] See [2].
[5] See [2].
[6] Long, Jeff. “Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots.” Chicago Tribune. September 28, 2001. Accessed January 2, 2005 at:
[7] See [2].
[8] Vialls, Joe. “Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft.” October, 2001. Accessed October 30, 2005 at:


batcave911 said...

i like your writings, and thought id pass this along.
I think it deserves some attention.

We already know that Bush and the Neo-Cons have deep ties to the Bin Laden Family
Part of that family is the Saudi Bin Laden Group.

The Saudi Bin Laden Group invested into a satellite project called "Iridium"
Motorola was heavily invested in it, when it failed, the GOV bailed them out.
The Iridium system has since been used mainly for military purposes
(including DOD contractors, FEMA + Disaster preparedness)

one of the Iridium satellites (Iridium 38) was launched on
September 11 1997

All of the relevant documents for Iridium
were signed on
September 11 1998$/SEC/Filing.asp?T=svRq.736n_7ph

The Saudi Bin Laden wesbite domain name was purchased on
September 11 2000
and it expired
September 11 2001


Binladin-Group Website

We have a discussion with more here, feel free to join


documents for Iridium were signed on Sept 11 1998
Including that of Hasan Bin Laden (Hasan M. BinLadin - Saudi Bin Laden Group)
Hasan is Bother to Osama

Now there is already dirt on the Saudi Bin Laden Group
and dirt on Iridium, but these dates bring all this into a new light
including the fact that the Saudi Bin Laden website domain name
may be linked to a murder, and the fact that Iridium is neck deep in DOD contracts
not top mention that one of the 9/11 commission members is also involved with
the Iridium satellite system.
Not to mention Khalid bin Mahfouz

read on...


Hasan bin Laden served as a director of the Iridium Middle East Corp. subsidiary, reported the New York Daily News.
The Saudi bin Laden Group, the family's investment arm, has also reportedly invested in the global phone link firm.


Blair Buys New Home Next to Bin Laden Property in Arab Area in London
Hasan (bin Laden) can see Blair's new home through his window.
He said he was a friend of Hasan and sometimes the two of them would go out to restaurants.


911-Commission - member
Senator Slade Gorton
State of Washington, Iridium China (Hong Kong) Ltd.


Not mentioned on Kean's official Commission biography was his role as director of Amerada Hess Corporation,
which in 1998 formed joint venture Delta-Hess, with Delta Oil, in part owned by Khalid bin Mahfouz.
Mahfouz inherited a controlling interest in the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, the country's largest bank, and was a director with 20% interest in BCCI, the now defunct financial conglomerate involved in money laundering, bribery, support of terrorism, arms trafficking and other crimes.
Mahfouz paid $225 million to escape prosecution for his role in the BCCI scandal.

Mahfouz also inherited the assets of the Saudi bin Laden group when Salem bin Laden died in a 1988 plane crash.

These included an interest in Arbusto Energy, a Houston, Texas oil company founded by George W. Bush.
Bin Mahfouz's interests were managed in part by James R. Bath, a close friend of Bush, who served in the Texas ANG with him.
Bath's name was inexplicably redacted in Bush's Air National Guard military medical reports.

Iran Contra and 9-11


In December 2000, shortly before Cohen left office, the Pentagon awarded Iridium Satellite LLC a $72 million contract , without competitive bidding, that helped save the company's communications satellites from destruction. David R. Oliver Jr., who was a senior procurement official at the time, said that he and Cohen were the Pentagon's principal advocates for the Iridium deal.
Over the past two years, Iridium has paid the Cohen Group about $400,000 to lobby the House, Senate and Department of Defense, according to lobbying disclosure statements.
"Several months after Secretary Cohen left office, The Cohen Group was contacted by the Chairman of Iridium to assist with marketing to several government agencies including DoD, as well as foreign governments," Tyrer said in writing. "Obviously, we had no such discussions while in office."

Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 9/11 Terrorists, Part 37:


Connect the Dot-coms
by Howard Altman
Saudi Bin Laden website domain name linked to murder ?


Saudi Bin Laden group website

Iridium and the Saudi Bin LAden group

Saudi Bin Laden Group - WIKI

More on the Bin Laden group

Bush - Carlyle -Bin Laden

Caustic Logic said...

Sorry for the delay is approving this and in responding, both of which I usually do quickly. This is a bit spammish in its size, and seems probably (?) not related to the Raytheon issue.

Nonetheless it's good stuff. I don't put too much in date synchronicities, but dang if they don't proliferate anyway! How's about that Frank Eugene Corder, anagram NRO RENEGADE FUCK.
Satellites... Didn't read the whole thing...

If you're Brad May, you're on my Fraud namebase. I might join your forum. I'm soured on 'em right now. I don't like 'discussing' so much I guess as doing monologues. When I'm feeling more social. Thx for the invite. Cheers back. :)

Anonymous said...


I read your comments on JPALS, LAAS, and WAAS. I will attempt to interject some facts here about those systems. None of these systems was employed in any commercial passenger aircraft on or before 2001 and only WAAS has found its way into aviation in recent years but in limited and restricted numbers.

JPALS is a replacement for ACLS and ICLS (automatic carrier landing system & independent carrier landing system) from the Navy's and Marine's perspective, and ILS, MLS, and PAR(independent landing system, microwave landing system, and precision landing system) from the Air Force perspective. JPALS uses the precise positioning service only available to military users who have crypto-graphic keys and categorized NATO allies who employ managed crypto nets/keys. JPALS requires a 24 channel GPS receiver with a differential GPS algorithm and a kalman filter to adapt to "noise" presented to the algorithms from the sensors (GPS & INS). But JPALS doesn't work unless it has a ground station transmitting perfect position information up to the aircraft (stating exactly where the ground station is, the landing area, and the errors exhibited by the GPS satellites). The aircraft must have a datalink to receive these ground station signals before the DGPS engine and kalman filter can process course corrections. But, once these corrections are applied to the truth source in the aircraft, all you have is a position with respect to time. The aircraft must still be flown by someone or something. If it's by "someone", the instrument panel will convey the correct course deviations to fly to the touch down point. If it's by "something", then an entirely separate flight director and auto pilot system must be coupled to the JPALS avionics (system) in the aircraft. There is no autonomous landing capability for JPALS without that separate system. It is not a fully CAT IIIa replacement mechanism anyway--GPS doesn't support the integrity or availability.

Secondly...LAAS was defunded, but only existed as a study. It was decided by the FAA that the civilian side of GPS failed to meet the FAA's availability and integrity requirements to replace the expensive ILS. Again, though, ILS (just like JPALS) requires ground stations in the proximity of the landing area in order to convey glideslope and marker beacon. These are analog signals that provide a voltage over open channel CW, but require full pilot control of the aircraft using headsets and instrument panel gauges to land the aircraft. There are no such ground installations near the Pentagon--only available at Reagan Intl if you're flying the glideslope.

Summary of reasoning on JPALS and LAAS/WAAS (some not discussed above):

-JPALS (before 2001) was worked by ARINC, Raytheon, Honeywell, SAIC, and SNC leading up to 2001. The installation was done on a Fedex 727-200 aircraft at Holloman and on an F/A-18A at NAS Pax River.

JPALS, like all landing systems requires a datalink in the terminal area. JPALS uses it to convey geo-registered ground data to the air platform for GPS satellite error corrections to be made. There are no dedicated UHF datalinks (required by JPALS at the time) in commercial airlines (only UHF voice channels, a VHF datalink for VOR, DME, and a mid-UHF datalink for IFF and TCAS).

-GPS PPS is not available to the FAA so that the JPALS algorithms would not have converged without NSA-certified cryptographic red keys employed in the GPS receiver. This requires at least a secret and cryptographic clearance by the operators to even obtain keys since the SAASM capabilities were not in place. If the receiver does not have crypto keys, the SPS signal is used where only 12 RF signals are available at any given time significantly reducing the accuracy of the positioning algorithms.

-LAAS was a pipe dream without any hardware developed. The LAAS VHF datalink spec died in 2004. It is currently in the study phase again with Honeywell at the helm.

-WAAS went IOC in Feb 2004. It continually slipped introduction since 1996, but it uses SBAS (space-based augmentation systems) to correct GPS satellite errors (not ground stations). It does not use a flight director. This is a separate mechanism in the air vehicle.

But in all this, there is still no discussion of remote control. That requires an additional datalink connected to the flight director in the aircraft, with a position system receiving and processing GPS correctional information from the JPALS ground stations, attached to the aircraft's INS for truth updates. Absolutely no way would the FAA allow a complex installation like this on an aircraft in 2001 even in someone's luggage. Have you noticed that most 757 are still not glass cockpits...rather spinning dials? They don't fix what isn't broken. Why change to an unproven design and risk financial liability?

The bright individuals working at the Pentagon, Darpa, NAS PAX River, Holloman, ARINC, SNC, SAIC, Honeywell, Litton, Rockwell Collins and Trimble did not have the funding in 2001 to do anything with a commercial automatic landing system on any other than the Fedex 727 or develop a remote control interface for any aircraft. I'm not saying that the 757 airliner was or was not remote controlled. I'm saying that it did not use LAAS, WAAS, or JPALS (or ILS, ICLS, MLS, PARS, Loran-C, ACLS, VOR, DME, IBS, TACAN, TCAS or any other precision-enhancing positional system) to steer its way into a structure. Think RC controller (as is used on a toy airplane) if you believe remote operation was employed.

Caustic Logic said...

To the poster of above comment - thank you much, and I will try my best to absorb it carefully for my over-due revision of this post. I did write it from a MIHOP-leaning PoV, which is less where I'm at now. I do stand by the core case being, technicalities and precise systems aside, RC tech for airliners is absolutely plausible and was so on 9/11. Does this mean they were used? Some good evidence says no, but even good evidence can be wrong... so that said, I do value evidence, so thanks again.

Anonymous said...

Looking for you to weigh in on my4/29 Anon posting Caustic...

Caustic Logic said...

Huh, yeah, another thing I never finished. I've pretty much gone into retirement here - no time at the moment, and I probably won't remember when I do have time. So I'll weigh in with a reiteration of thanks for more info, and another admission that i don't really understand this stuff. Apologies for not engaging your points in any detail.

So... the post may not be totally accurate, but I did approve a comment that clarifies some things, and drew attention to it at the top. I'll let the reader decide from there.