[sinkspur]

There have been other articles that speculated on the "remote control theory" and I haven't seen anything that authoritatively refutes it.

Because it's too stupid to refute. Why bother with such lunacy?

Four airliners were flown by remote control? It's not even possible.

[Marianne]

Because it's too stupid to refute. Why bother with such lunacy?
Four airliners were flown by remote control? It's not even possible.
Well, if you say so, but I would appreciate something a little more authoritative.
Excerpts from the posted article:
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station. Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on Septembe 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.