We reflected on the transponder signals which were allegedly missing. It makes no sense for hijackers to erase these signals - the aircraft gets no invisibility by doing that. Just on the contrary: the blip signal remains on the screens of the radar in the towers, and missing transponderinformation immediately causes radio contact from the radar control. What is it? It is a four-number code given by the ground to the aircraft, changing from airspace to airspace, from tower in charge to the next. Additionally it is added flight informations as height and course. Any change in direction and height is clearly visible on the screens, but given the wish of hijackers to misleed the ground control by just leaving them without information makes no sense. So there is no "viz zero", but full alert when the technical transponder gets off and there is no response on radio requests. (As it in fact happened with at least the two WTC-aircraft. The normal operational procedure  of suspected hijacking with information of FAA AND Norad).

If the pilot is given the chance he can provide additional information about the situation through internationally approved codes replacing the normal codes. That is 7500 for hijacking and 7600 for radio failure. Knowing that missing transponder code AND no response on radio requests from the ground nearly automatically will be answered by the intercepting routine by military aircraft, it makes sense to give the cockpit the opportunity to show by 7600 that there is a technically induced radio problem. To reach for the transponder signal and adding 7500 is for sure not a handling which takes minutes. So the question remains: if it was not the hijackers who took out the signals, but the pilots: why did they all switch them off and none of the 8 pilots was able to replace it by 7500?

Which leads us to the question of lack of electricity.
Mr. M. confirmed the infos of Herrn F.: There is so much electricity on board, so many sources and so many interconnections, that a complete lack is nearly unthinkable. If the engine-driven generators would fail, there are akkumulators and batteries everywhere (for instance for the galley, the cabin lights, video and so on), and at least the small propeller falling out of the aircraft and driven just by the wind could provide enough energy to supply basic computerized functions. With no electricity at all the aircraft would sail to ground because the fuel pumps would fail as well. But, as I concluded, if the crew is hindered by hijackers to activate these interconnections or if the electricity-supply is broken by a voluntarily working interface which in the same time feeds a "global hawk" or other drone system as a proxy pilot, Mr. M. could NOT RULE OUT THIS POSSIBILITY. He said not to be a systemengineer (neither me), and so he could not positively approve this hypothesis.

(That one computer system could replace the other if manipulated, and all the security measures which Herr F. must have thought about is all invalid without electricity, is basic. That the installation of interfaces and a surrogate-cockpit causes new questions on the other hand: later.
But the missing transponder signals, the missing voices of the cockpit on the voicerecorders, the missing radioing with the towers can be explained by that. We assume that any hijacker who is able to leave testaments and letters should be interested to explain his deed, to praise Allah loudly and at least to confer with his fellow terrorist about the course and how to handle the instruments - so there should be 30 minutes of interesting voices on the recorders. If not - this only means that those who withhold the contents cannot reveal the real content, because there is no possibility to falsify the voices of 4 hijackers without protesting of their families who easily can identify / reject these voices. To reveal the voices of the pilots warily trying to regain control of the systems is neither possible.)

Very stunning by the way is the revelation in the fake video of bin Laden who allegedly said 
"All brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation, and we asked each of them to go to America, but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them untill they are there and just before they boarded the planes." (Newsweek,December 24, 2001,p.19) The whole hypothesis of the remote controlled planes is based on the assumption that the arabs onboard were not hijackers or not all of them or not fully informed/betrayed hijackers. Now the makers of the video give this idea a chance! And by the way, they contradict the findings of the three letters which were alledgedly found and which informed the brothers obviously and referred to previous informations ...   
Back to the friendly talk on the flight.
Mr. M. vividly supported the opinion of Hosni Mubarak which I refered to him about the incredible flight skills of the "suicide pilots" hitting the ground flour of the pentagon after an incredibly complicated descent and about the WTC looking like pencils out of a cockpit.

About interception standard operational procedures he acknoledged the findings of Jared Israel: first radio contact, view contact, rocking of the wings. Never there is a need to shoot a plane down before at least try the procedures internationally known. So where is the foundation of an assumption that the pilots of the interceptors had moral problems or were waiting for further orders of their superiors which were not given because of a chaos? There was no chaos, and there were no interceptors close to one of the hijacked planes which could begin with even the slightest attempt to intercept. 
There are no flight manuals in the arabic language, as we presumed. Where came those arabic flight manuals from which were allegedly found in the rented cars of the alleged hijackers in the airports - when such things do not exist ?

*The installation of interfaces and a proxy piloting causes new questions: 
- how to do the engineering in four different planes of two different airlines on different airports without being seen, without causing several problems as to be seen or to destroy the normal functions or to cause investigations?
- how to be sure that the installations were rightly done in exact THOSE planes which were scheduled to lift off exactly with those flight numbers and directions which were necessary, and times that were requested to fulfill the operation?
- how complicated: tec teams installing global hawk, security teams to prevent early investigations, then the deception of 20 "hijackers to be", and to get the final security they hit their goals maybe laser-guided last approaches. Isn't it easier to train 20 hijackers in reality?
(Both of these arguments fail when we accept that a home-run system was already installed in every Boeing to overrule pilots/hijackers decisions in case of a hijacking, as Vialls claims)
- there WERE hijackers according to the phone calls of the passengers. Were they betrayed themselves? Were they those Arabs as it is said in the mainstream media - which can be doubted, but not ruled out?
- what remains are questions. In any case. Let us look for answers and for the good questioning, not for hypothesis. The one and only conspiracy theory left undoubted is that of our governments, which without evidence claim that everything is clear. Let us question this conspiracy theory and not construct new ones.
#e No Suicide Pilots - this link provides interesting information, especially when you follow the suggested way to itnarchive.com. Global hawk is reality. But what the author says is still unproven - but it cannot be ruled out.

There are two stories, completely incompatible with each other. One, that  neither of these planes were ever "lost." The second is elaborate stories about how they were lost until the very minute they crashed.

The transponder code changed story is old. Here it is in the timeline:

8:46 A.M. Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal. It is 50 miles north of New York City, headed towards Baltimore. <8:46:18, Guardian,10/17/01> Another lie? Note that at 8:42, a flight controller said, "there's no transponder no nothing." However, they turned the transponder off for only about 30 seconds, then returned the transponder to a signal that was not designated to any plane on that day. This "allowed controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it." 

Note that other stories completely contradict this, saying Flight 175 was lost presumably until the very last minute:

(Between 8:46 - 9:03 A.M.) At some unknown point before Flight 175 crashes, flight controllers in Garden City on Long Island, New York, are still looking for Flight 11. Flight 175 is an unmarked blip. One controller stands up in horror.
"No," he shouts, "he's not going to land. He's going in!" "Oh, my God! He's headed for the city," another controller shouts. "Oh, my God! He's headed for Manhattan!" 

Here's some of the contradictory stories about Flight 11 being lost, or not:

8:28 A.M. Boston Air Traffic Control radar sees Flight 11 making an unplanned 100 degree turn to the south (they're already way off-course). Flight controllers say they never lost sight of the flight, though they could no longer determine altitude once the transponder was turned off. However, in other media reports, "Boston airport officials said they did not spot the plane's course until it had crashed, and said the control tower had no unusual communication with the pilots or any crew members." The lack of unusual communication is an incredible lie, as other prior entries show. Before this turn, the FAA had tagged Flight 11's radar dot for easy visibility, and at American Airlines headquarters at least, "All eyes watched as the plane headed south. On the screen, the plane showed a squiggly line after its turn near Albany, then it straightened." Why such blatant lies? They expect people to believe they didn't know the flight was a hijacking until after it crashed?
     Why should the same people be expected to tell the truth on other incidents of the day?
 

The stories are so mutually contradictory its amazing, and even amusing.