IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Remote Controlled Boeing 720 1984 Crash Test

Paul
post Sep 1 2010, 08:05 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



I was just looking on youtube and come accross this crash test with a boeing 720 aircraft being
performed in 1984 with the aim of improving the fuel to give plane passangers a higher chance
of surviving a fiery plane wreck, [i]AND THE ONE THING THAT I NOTICED WAS THAT THIS BOEING 720 TEST PLANE WAS CONTROLLED VIA REMOTE CONTROLLED PILOTING i found
fact very interesting because it proves that a large boeing commercial airliner can be flown via
remote control and i find it very interesting how the detractors especially those at the the govt loyalist site forum
have insisted that a large boeing commercial airliner cannot possibly be flown with such precision and accuracy as the planes where flown on 9/11 via remote control i have ever heard their hero debunker
Mr R Mackey claim that it is not even possible to fly a large boeing commercial airliner such as the boeing 757 via remote control and do as was performed by the planes on 9/11 he seems to scoff at the idea, even Mr R Mackey has failed to refute disprove the theory that a large boeing commercial airliner
could be remotely controlled in such fashion as was done on 9/11 so much for the big hero de bunker
Mr R Mackey, and what suprised me besides the fact that the test was done way back in 1984 one year
after i entered this world was the fact that they had flown the aircraft via remote control and had done 14 test runs and 150ft 69m above the proposed crash test site while the plane was flown under remote control and all these tests where carried out and performed by NASA Ames Research Center, Langley Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center, the FAA, and General Electric, all this information
is according to one of the most common but not the most reliable internet sites for information and research wikipedia see the article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration
My point is if remote control was possible back in 1984, 17 years before 9/11 even took place and remote control of a large commercial airliner was possible with some degree of accuracy and control of
the aircraft shouldnt it be entirely possible that the planes used on 9/11 where rigged up and installed with similar probably more advanced technology to enable the planes to operated via remote control and guided into the wtc twin towers on 9/11? Why even bother looking for further proof that remote control of a large commercial airliner is possible when it is sitting there staring us right infront of the
face. Why has this topic not been discussed here on this forum before?

The only questions that remain in my mind are how was it controlled via remote controll?
How was the plane controlled via remotely by some sort of a stick etc? How easy was the
aircraft to control, was it hard to maintaincontrol of the aircraft when flown remotely?
What where the limitations of such a setup? And how close to the aircraft did the pilot
have to be to maintain control of the plane, how far can the plane be flown via remote
control before the signal looses to much strength?

So surely if they could fly the plane 150ft 69m above the target area and fly a total of 14
test runs this means they must have been able to fly and land the plane via remote control
and it even says according to wikipedia on the final day of the crash test.

"On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. All fuel tanks were filled with a total of 76,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of AMK and all engines ran from start-up to impact (the flight time was 9 minutes) on the modified Jet-A. It then began a descent-to-landing along the roughly 3.8-degree glideslope to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake, with the landing gear remaining retracted."


"Post-impact 1Passing the decision height of 150 feet (46 m) above ground level (AGL), the aircraft turned slightly to the right of the desired path. The aircraft entered into a situation known as a Dutch Roll. Slightly above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around", there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the center-line of the runway. The aircraft was below the glideslope and below the desired airspeed. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low, at full throttle, with the aircraft nose pointing to the left of the center-line."

So in otherwords they where able to fly the plane to an altitude of 2,300 feet put the plane into dutch roll and crash it with enough presicion to successfully complete the test as intended look like the had perfect control of this plane and could control it without any problems whatsoever so who is to say that
they didnt re invent and improve this technology 17 years later and use it to remotely control the flights
11 and 175 with great precision and ramm them full throttle into the side of each of the towers surely if they could do it way back in 1984 with such ease surely they could have done it on 9/11 now think about that for a second.

Here is a link to the actual crash test itself with onboard camera's

NASA/Dryden Controlled Impact Demonstration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQaY49cvHYI

And here is another of the same test conducted

CID Aircraft in practice flight above target impact site

Cheers take care Paul

whistle.gif whistle.gif pilotfly.gif pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 1 2010, 03:28 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Old news Paul, but welcome aboard.

USAF has been flying drone aircraft since like 1948 or so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Sep 1 2010, 06:29 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Paul and Amazed!

QUOTE
Old news Paul, but welcome aboard. USAF has been flying drone aircraft since like 1948 or so.


Even before 1948, in 1943 the German Fritz-X remote piloted bomb wrecked havoc over the invasions of Italy. It used a feedback of a televised picture signal to its operator on a bomber plane for remote guidance. The USS Savannah (CL 43?) was severely damaged. HMS Warspite, an old but modernized British battleship, has its X turret destroyed. And the Italian Battleship RMS Roma, a very formidable ship that was only 3 years old and modern in every way, was sunk by two Fritz-X hits on its way to surrender.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Sep 2 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (amazed! @ Sep 2 2010, 04:58 AM) *
Old news Paul, but welcome aboard.

USAF has been flying drone aircraft since like 1948 or so.


No your missing my point if they could do this way back in 1984 why couldnt they have done it on 9/11 with the planes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 2 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Hi Paul

Yessir, that's been my position for about 5 years now. IMO, much of the evidence supports that, even if it's only circumstantial evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Sep 5 2010, 12:48 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



QUOTE (amazed! @ Aug 31 2010, 02:24 PM) *
Hi Paul

Yessir, that's been my position for about 5 years now. IMO, much of the evidence supports that, even if it's only circumstantial evidence.



Paul:

You're exactly right......those planes could well have been flows by romote control.....except for the final attack run. If commercial pilots could not easily hit the WTC flying at red-line speed, then it would certainly be impossible to do it by remote control. I believe that the planes were taken off by remote control, then at some point nearing NYC, the planes were put on auto-pilot for the final run. By using a GPS guided autopilot, it would be 99.9% foolproof because they are so highly accurate and dependable. So they want me to believe that student pilots flew them into the towers???? Huh!

BTW, over the last month, I have made three trips on commercial airliners and I could not pick up a signal above about 2,000 ft AGL. And now the phones are using even better technology with many more cell towers more closely spaced. So how in the hell were all those cell phone calls made on 9/11/2001?????

This post has been edited by bobcat46: Sep 5 2010, 12:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Sep 13 2010, 01:05 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Sep 6 2010, 03:18 AM) *
Paul:

You're exactly right......those planes could well have been flows by romote control.....except for the final attack run. If commercial pilots could not easily hit the WTC flying at red-line speed, then it would certainly be impossible to do it by remote control. I believe that the planes were taken off by remote control, then at some point nearing NYC, the planes were put on auto-pilot for the final run. By using a GPS guided autopilot, it would be 99.9% foolproof because they are so highly accurate and dependable. So they want me to believe that student pilots flew them into the towers???? Huh!

BTW, over the last month, I have made three trips on commercial airliners and I could not pick up a signal above about 2,000 ft AGL. And now the phones are using even better technology with many more cell towers more closely spaced. So how in the hell were all those cell phone calls made on 9/11/2001?????


Yes i am glad that you agree with me, and that the alledged speeds on 9/11 for flight 175 and flight 11 are impossible to
have obtained at those speeds and that the aircraft where most likely not the ones we where told hit the towers but rather they where probably highly modified
boeing 757's or similar designed to handle the speed and took off from a miltiary base most likely by remote control and then flown by autopilot into the towers, it has already been demonstrated that the alledged speeds for flights 175 and flights 11 are impossible this has been backed by people such a Dwain Deets retired former NASA aerospace engineer and many others
such a Captain Kolstad who i believe has air time in flight 11 which alledgedly struck the south tower here we have more
evidence which demonstrates that remote control of large commercial airliners is possible and has been since 1983,
but as rob says "there are those who continue makes excuses for governments official story" as far as the 9/11 speed goes
the burden of proof is on those who claim that the planes could acheive those airspeeds at low altitude. and so far they have
failed to provide any evidence to refute these claims, but instead have resorted to straw man arguments and twisting and destorting the truth anyway they can, no one has so far produced ANY EVIDENCE THAT THESE PLANES CAN ATTAIN THOSE SPEEDS not even those who do run deceptive flight stimulator tests, i am no expert pilot not have i ever flown a plane but
i am not stupid and can see the truth that sits right infront of my eyes.

Cheers Paul S

salute.gif

This post has been edited by Paul: Sep 13 2010, 01:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 18 2010, 10:55 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,016
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



GPS guidance, and then some sort of homing device close in, which would explain the last minute bank.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Jan 14 2011, 11:12 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



Amazed!!

I don't disagree with your idea about a target signal in the towers responsible for the last bank, but I don't think that would be necessary to cause the final correction. When I am approaching a waypoint with the boat on autopilot, it is very, very stable, making very small corrections untill I get very close to the waypoint. Even at 6 knots, as the boat nears the waypoint, larger and larger corrections are necessary for the boat to bring the GPS antenna right over the waypoint (accuracy on mine is 7 to 10 feet). At the speed the aircraft were traveling, the same thing would happen, but even more exagerated. A small amount of drift or error would cause a very visible bank at the last instant in order to bring the GPS right into the waypoint. At those high speeds, all very easily done with an autopilot, very difficult with an experienced pilot, but absolutely impossible for a student pilot.

Bobcat46

(PS, give me a call, I am not currently deployed.) cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
panthercat
post Jan 14 2011, 04:41 PM
Post #10





Group: Core Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 14-April 07
From: Pahoa, HI
Member No.: 952



The Savannah was CL-42. The Bell X-5 was an extension of the swing wing aircraft the Germans were working on before the war ended, like many other things they started but didn't get to finish.

Whether or not these aircraft were flown by hand or remote, other than the videos, there is nothing to indicate they actually struck anything. There is no demonstrable evidence whatsoever. There should have been a lot of FOD on the deck, but somehow two very large metallic bodies disappeared into nothingness in NY. Besides, the supposed hits were too high up for the entire structures to collapse the way they did. Take the end result and work backwards. Two perfectly symmetrical collapses were supposedly initiated by two very asymmetrical hits. There should not have been significant damage more than 5 floors below the hits. This was blamed on a kerosene fed fire, but that simply doesn't happen. This group should at least visit Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth to get a rough idea of how to develop a plausible explanation of what happened.

I'm probably beating my head against a wall, like trying to explain to the CAS types you can't Navalize an aircraft by strengthening the nose gear and adding a tail hook, which may survive a few landings, but not much more.

Do you realize if Cornwallis had beaten Washington, we'd all be speaking English?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Jan 16 2011, 04:21 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (panthercat @ Jan 14 2011, 10:41 AM) *
Do you realize if Cornwallis had beaten Washington, we'd all be speaking English?

They speak “Tagalog” where I live…

Some rain storm we had last week…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd July 2019 - 09:11 PM