Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ United 175 _ Asking For Some Clarification...

Posted by: beatles64 Jan 29 2008, 04:37 PM

I am posting this in hope that other users can help me put the multiple theories surronding the airplanes into a more clear perspective. I guess the best way for me to do this is to first admit that I dont know too much about what would or would not have been possible with the aircrafts (i.e. could they have been remotely flown, could they be different aircrafts, missle at the pentagon, etc...)

I am doing this at the risk of being labeled a nut, but I am hoping someone can help clear this up with some detail, since there are so many competing theories that seem to have supportive evidence.

I guess to start I would like to ask if anyone can clarify some of the info found on youtube suggesting that there were descrepencies in the airplane speeds, sizes, and approaches as they hit the South Tower...can anyone provide more supportive evidence that these were not the planes stated? Or is it just a matter of perspective, quality, etc...

Again most of this is outside of my knowledge, and any help is greatly appreciated.

Posted by: amazed! Jan 29 2008, 06:39 PM

Almost don't know where to begin, Beatles.

Everything about the official story is suspect, and has been from the beginning.

The Kean Commission was a coverup, and it ignored more evidence than it considered. A fine example of that is the testimony of Willie Rodriguez which was taken behind closed doors and not included in the final report. It's job was to protect the guilty and provide smoke and mirrors for the media to manipulate.

The USAF has been flying aircraft by remote control for at least 40 years and have become quite good at it.

There is no evidence that there were Boeings at either Shanksville PA, or at the Pentagon. Pilots For Truth analyzed Flight Data Recorders provided by the government, and each analysis contradicts the official version.

Architects & Engineers for Truth did an elaborate study of all the available evidence, that which was not thrown away by the government, and came to the conclusion that the 3 buildings at WTC were brought down by controlled demolition.

It was an inside job, is all that's certain.

Posted by: beatles64 Jan 29 2008, 07:31 PM

Thanks amazed!...I am quite familiar with the many flaws in the 9/11 story, and have been researching almost daily since I first saw Loose Change (the first 9/11 film I was aware of) about 2 years ago.

With the airplanes, I guess what I am asking would be this:

Has the possibility of remote controlled airplanes been completely ruled out or verified
(by this I mean do the professionals here KNOW through their research they were
remote, or is still 'highly suspect' at this point?)

I have similar questions with the damage to the buildings:

Why such a large hole in the first tower, but smaller in the second and Pentagon?
Is this just due to the approach patterns of each or is there another explanation?


I know a lot of this might seem like a repeat, but I am new to this and did try to find some of these answers before posting but was for the most part unsuccessful.

Again, I appreciate all the help and any responses that come, Thank You.

Posted by: painter Jan 29 2008, 09:03 PM

@ beatles64,

First of all, welcome to our forum.

Beyond that, I'm going to suggest that you be willing to entertain a level of uncertainty that many find difficult to bear. Everyone wants to know the facts and details of what happened but the simple and damning fact is there is far more that we do not and, perhaps, can not know than we do know for a certainty.

Consider, for example, that in each instance where we've been told a commercial airliner crashed on 9/11, the identities of those craft have NOT been positively verified. The government assumes that it knows which flights crashed where but has provided almost zero public evidence to verify these assertions. Imagine an instance where there has been a murder and the murder weapon is missing -- destroyed in the commission of the crime in such a way that its precise ownership and identity can not be determined. This makes it very difficult for an investigator and prosecutor to press a case. Now imagine that happening four times in one day. Now imagine that in each instance the "murder weapon" is alleged to be a commercial airliner.

That is what we have on 9/11 -- four aircraft that can not be positively identified used as murder weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

Why can't even ONE of these aircraft be positively identified? Well, THAT is a most interesting question. The basic (non)answer is because either no engine or other aircraft part survived with identifiable catalog numbers on them AND the government refuses Freedom of Information Act Requests for what numbers they may, in fact, have.

It is very difficult to get information that isn't suspect regarding 9/11. The identities of the aircraft is suspect. What is not suspect is that the government is refusing to positively identify those craft.

This is just one example of the problems a rational and intelligent person faces attempting to get definite answers to questions related to 9/11. There is a cover-up -- and it is a cover-up that is ongoing to this day. The cover-up includes a lot of misinformation and disinformation that has been put into the public domain to "bury the bone deeper" (so to speak). The research Pilots for Truth has done makes clear, for example, that the Flight Data Recorders have been tampered with -- and, even so, do not validate the government's own hypothesis of what happened.

It is a conundrum -- and it is a counter-intelligence operation. No one is supposed to know the truth. You are supposed to either believe what you're told by the government officials OR, if you want to dig for yourself, you have to endure the slings and arrows of conflicting data and misinformation. Or, as I am suggesting, be willing to endure a level of uncertainty many find difficult.

It boils down to this: There is much we do not know and can not know absent a genuine, non-partisan and transparent investigation with the power to subpoena, put officials under oath and cross-examine. That we have not had anything close to such an investigation is the biggest clue there is.

Posted by: beatles64 Jan 29 2008, 09:14 PM

Thanks a lot for that Painter...helps to put things in perspective sometimes when you hear someone else's words

I suppose leaving this post open for reply would end in repeating our thoughts for all to hear, but then again brainstorming is certainly not going to hurt.

I guess what I am saying is this could probably be closed if needed, since it is apparent that most conclusive information about 9/11 is currently sealed from the general public.

Posted by: painter Jan 29 2008, 09:48 PM

QUOTE (beatles64 @ Jan 29 2008, 05:14 PM)
<s>
I guess what I am saying is this could probably be closed if needed
<s>

No need at all.

Lets see if others have anything to say.

Never be surprised if you find different people expressing differing opinions -- especially in this place. LoL. salute.gif

Posted by: rob balsamo Jan 29 2008, 10:05 PM

Once again... Welcome to the forums Beatles...!

Now you know why i replied the way i did via PM...

We have some wise people here on this forum... wink.gif

Posted by: beatles64 Jan 30 2008, 06:33 AM

Wise people indeed...I am beginning to fall in love with this place..a great GREAT source of information that is always open to discussion..

Posted by: dMole Jan 30 2008, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (beatles64 @ Jan 29 2008, 04:31 PM)
Has the possibility of remote controlled airplanes been completely ruled out or verified (by this I mean do the professionals here KNOW through their research they were remote, or is still 'highly suspect' at this point?)

Hi Beatles,

I did some research on the remote aircraft question and put together the following resources.

The technology to control aircraft remotely is VERY real, and has been used in rudimentary or not-so-rudimentary forms since August 1944. This could be considered a "history of the UAV" if you will. I saw an Associated Press article a while back about over 500,000 UAV flight hours during 2007, and I don't remember hearing of many accidents or shootdowns.

Remote B-720 "controlled crash" at Edwards AFB on 1 Dec 1984
Controlled Impact Demonstration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/index.html

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880000639_1988000639.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890006539_1989006539.pdf

See any of the following US military designations: MQ, RQ, Q, BQ, MB, Drone, Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV), UAV, UCAV

Here are some related patents (all after 9/11/2001, but Research and Development is not an overnight thing)
http://www.pat2pdf.org/

US Patents
6995688
6845302
7193520
20030052798
7142971

Boeing BQ-7 Aphrodite- approved 26 Jun 1944, first flown on 4 Aug 1944, a "radio controlled assault drone... to be flown from Great Britain against very hardened and/or heavily defended German targets...."
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/bq-7.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_14.html
[now what famous Manhattan and Pentagon air "crashes" does this remind you of- Operation Northwoods was actually a little behind the times, I'd say...]

unmanned Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
http://www.uswarplanes.net/b17.html
QB-17L, QB-17N, MB-17G
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeing/qb-17n.htm

MB-17G (only one exists #44-83624, I believe)
http://www.amcmuseum.org/Collections/Aircraft/B17FlyingFortress.htm
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/presbrcp.htm

QB-17G, Q-7 drone- first made in May 1946
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/q-7.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_24.html

Boeing QB-17G- 15 May 1953
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1953.htm

QB-47 Stratojet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-47_Stratojet#QB-47
MB-47B, QB-47
http://www.aerofiles.com/_boe.html

DASH- unmanned QH-50A helicopter flight on 12 Aug 1960
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/dash_history.htm

QH-50A
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/qh-50a_models1.htm

QH-50C
http://www.gyrodynehelicopters.com/qh-50c1.htm

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0041c1b9-d938-4956-a88e-436c8fc8ba45&k=33368

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001308.html

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001094.html

Boeing UCAV- 27 Sep 2000
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000927n.htm

http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/X-45/timeline.htm

RAFT
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_rec/proceedings/authors/levine.pdf

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/01/210869/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked.html

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-d.html

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/locator/types/usaf/1924-/b/q.htm

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387585-details/New%20autopilot%20will%20make%20another%20911%20impossible/article.do

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/control.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/homerun.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/uav.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-tsq-198.htm

Posted by: beatles64 Jan 30 2008, 09:59 PM

Wow....a LOT of information there, thanks a lot.


This is what starts to scare me more and more about the official story of 9/11...the massive body of evidence assembled by the various 9/11 truth groups becomes much like a slippery slope, and still so few are taking notice, when it seems a lot of aspects not only don't add up, they can be completely dis-proven, or in this case, completely countered to where it becomes a real, logical possibility.


Thanks again for all the info.

Posted by: amazed! Jan 30 2008, 11:08 PM

So few are taking notice for a variety of reasons.

The biggest reason is that there is a magnificent coverup on the part of the government and the media.

The next biggest reason, IMO, is the inherent defense mechanisms in the human psyche. People simply do not want to face the fact that their government has attacked them. Some people can handle it, and some people simply cannot.

Cognitive dissonance, is what the shrinks call it. Wilful ignorance, the attorneys call it.

Posted by: beatles64 Jan 31 2008, 03:24 PM

I agree most people seem to be aware, but many choose not to act or not to let it become a large scale concern for them.


I am still curious about the impact damages. I am not sure if a pilot could answer this, but I would like to try to leave that open to discussion. The large hole in the NT, versus smaller in the ST and Pentagon.

I can understand the difference easier in the two towers because of the videos showing the airplanes impacting in different ways, but still have a hard time with the pentagon....do any of the pilots believe this is conclusive of what did or did not hit the towers/pentagon?

Posted by: amazed! Feb 1 2008, 11:41 PM

With all due respect Beatles, perhaps you are focusing too much on the tree and neglecting to look at the whole forest?

Who cares how big the holes are? The whole thing is a lie, pardon the pun. laughing1.gif

Posted by: beatles64 Feb 2 2008, 04:13 PM

i do see your point, and the pun is quite clever actually...unfortunately I don't have one of my own to follow sad.gif

Posted by: dMole May 27 2008, 12:52 AM

Lest we forget- those unmanned NASA and USSR space flights of the 1950s and 1960s would have needed what kind of technology exactly?

Posted by: beatles64 Jun 4 2008, 01:36 PM

I am unfamiliar with these flights...can you provide a link?

Posted by: dMole Jun 4 2008, 02:32 PM

Hi Beatles,

There have been dozens, rather hundreds of unmanned spaceflight launches.

Wiki sorts them by year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_spaceflight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight#History_of_spaceflight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_exploration

Russian/USSR launches:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/chronology_XX.html

See also the Wiki timeline, starting in 1957.

I wouldn't exactly rule out the possibility of "classified" and military launches that don't often get listed either... whistle.gif

EDIT: Wow, who dropped all those paperclips?

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jun 4 2008, 02:37 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ May 25 2008, 03:52 AM) *
Lest we forget- those unmanned NASA and USSR space flights of the 1950s and 1960s would have needed what kind of technology exactly?

A very large gun, a shell and masses of gun cotton IIRC.

Oh! And a gun club to organise it. laugh.gif

Posted by: Omega892R09 Jun 4 2008, 02:40 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Jun 2 2008, 05:32 PM) *
EDIT: Wow, who dropped all those paperclips?

Werner von somebody or other. wink.gif

Posted by: Anduril Aug 21 2008, 03:28 AM

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 29 2008, 11:39 PM) *
Almost don't know where to begin, Beatles.

Everything about the official story is suspect, and has been from the beginning.

The Kean Commission was a coverup, and it ignored more evidence than it considered. A fine example of that is the testimony of Willie Rodriguez which was taken behind closed doors and not included in the final report. It's job was to protect the guilty and provide smoke and mirrors for the media to manipulate.

The USAF has been flying aircraft by remote control for at least 40 years and have become quite good at it.

There is no evidence that there were Boeings at either Shanksville PA, or at the Pentagon. Pilots For Truth analyzed Flight Data Recorders provided by the government, and each analysis contradicts the official version.

Architects & Engineers for Truth did an elaborate study of all the available evidence, that which was not thrown away by the government, and came to the conclusion that the 3 buildings at WTC were brought down by controlled demolition.

It was an inside job, is all that's certain.



A word of caution regarding what you see on the TV, and other government propaganda...

http://www.garry.tv/?p=623

Amazing, eh?

Anduril

Posted by: Omega892R09 Sep 14 2008, 08:30 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 28 2008, 06:42 PM) *
Hi Beatles,

I did some research on the remote aircraft question and put together the following resources.

Here is another remote controlled type that pre-dated WW2 and is derived from the Tiger Moth (like the one in my avatar):

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/QueenBee.htm

Posted by: dMole Sep 14 2008, 09:03 AM

Ah Omega892R09...

I kneel--- both humbled and corrected sir. worthy.gif handsdown.gif You have bested my research [and that is not an easy thing to do IMHO- of course it took you a few months wink.gif ]

Just don't let Sanders get a look at this:



salute.gif
----
EDIT to add the important part:

"Primary Role:
Trainer
First Flight:
26 October, 1931
"

=====================
Also O892, I've heard conflicting reports [likely based upon US government "Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America (DDDOA)" propaganda] about Philo T. Farnsworth vs. that British chap "inventing" television. I had very good records on the British chap, but my "Winchester" crash seems to have alleviated that evidence. I can't recall his name exactly- please advise if possible.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Sep 14 2008, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 12 2008, 11:03 AM) *
Ah Omega892R09...

I kneel--- both humbled and corrected sir. worthy.gif handsdown.gif You have bested my research [and that is not an easy thing to do IMHO- of course it took you a few months wink.gif ]


I thought of it as soon as the antiquity of remote controlled A/C came up but for a number of reasons - being away, computer troubles etc,. never got around to pointing this info' out. Being a small time historian of things RN and FAA (and a good bit else) I would be derelict if I hadn't known this.

EDIT:

PS. I had an advantage from specialist knowledge on that one so don't be too hard on yourself. salute.gif
QUOTE
EDIT to add the important part:

"Primary Role:
Trainer
First Flight:
26 October, 1931
"

=====================
Also O892, I've heard conflicting reports [likely based upon US government "Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America (DDDOA)" propaganda] about Philo T. Farnsworth vs. that British chap "inventing" television. I had very good records on the British chap, but my "Winchester" crash seems to have alleviated that evidence. I can't recall his name exactly- please advise if possible.

A Scotsman, John Logie Baird.

Posted by: dMole Oct 6 2008, 10:13 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 30 2008, 02:42 PM) *
unmanned Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
http://www.uswarplanes.net/b17.html
QB-17L, QB-17N, MB-17G
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeing/qb-17n.htm

MB-17G (only one exists #44-83624, I believe)
http://www.amcmuseum.org/Collections/Aircraft/B17FlyingFortress.htm
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/presbrcp.htm

QB-17G, Q-7 drone- first made in May 1946
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/q-7.html
http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher2/b17_24.html

Boeing QB-17G- 15 May 1953
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1953.htm

Well this is errr.... "odd." whistle.gif

It looks like that MB-17G #44-83624 page has "gone 404," and is now just a B-17G (not MB-17G).

http://www.amcmuseum.org/exhibits_and_planes/bomber/b-17/b-17.html

That page does state:"
Although produced too late to see combat in WWII, #44-83624 saw extensive service first in a highly secret project that resurrected the idea of using obsolete aircraft as radio-controlled flying bombs, then as a drone-control aircraft in the ground-to-air missile development program. In 1957, it was retired to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. In 1989, it was given to Dover to replace the famous B-17G "Shoo-Shoo-Shoo Baby" that was restored here over a ten-year period and flown back, under her own power, to Wright-Patterson's Museum."

But this page still tells us:
"B-17G-90-DL
MB-17G
TB-17G
DB-17G
DB-17P
44-83624 JAN01 http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/Chatfield/44-83624.htm http://www.amcmuseum.org/ Dover AFB (DE)
Displayed as "2107112 Sleepy Time Gal"
"
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/presbrcp.htm

Is someone re-writing history again?

Posted by: dMole Dec 15 2008, 07:25 PM

UPDATE: I just received a very polite, explanatory PM from the webmaster of the museum referenced in my post #24 immediately above. Paraphrasing that as I respect the privacy of PM's and will not quote it here, this B-17 in question is no longer currently in "drone" trim after having been restored. It seems that the old Boeing "Sleepy Time Gal" #44-83624 has had quite a career over the years. salute.gif

Posted by: amazed! Dec 16 2008, 11:00 AM

I suspect that within certain circles in the USAF, they would rather pretend that remote controlled aircraft are something new and modern, like UAVs.

They would prefer not to discuss the question of early generation drones, like the B-17 in question.

Posted by: FlightForTruth Feb 25 2009, 08:12 PM

painter,

Thank you for this succinct introduction.

I have researched the Mythology of 9/11 for several years. I've recently wanted to know more about the facts surrounding the actual airplanes. Your remarks clarify that the information that is available is sullied and poisoned. This is inexcusable in what purports to be a free nation and a Constitutional Republic.

I'm wondering how the actual corporations of American Airlines and United Airlines play a part in all of this cover-up. Who was bribed? Who was threatened? Who was forced to go along with this cover-up at these organizations?

FlightForTruth

Posted by: Sanders Feb 25 2009, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (FlightForTruth @ Mar 1 2009, 07:12 PM) *
I'm wondering how the actual corporations of American Airlines and United Airlines play a part in all of this cover-up. Who was bribed? Who was threatened? Who was forced to go along with this cover-up at these organizations?


You ask good questions.

(Wouldn't we all like to know)

Posted by: painter Feb 25 2009, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (FlightForTruth @ Feb 25 2009, 04:12 PM) *
I'm wondering how the actual corporations of American Airlines and United Airlines play a part in all of this cover-up. Who was bribed? Who was threatened? Who was forced to go along with this cover-up at these organizations?


Well thanks for the positive response and welcome to the forum, FightForTruth. Unfortunately there is no way I or anyone else can answer your question except to speculate.

From everything you said in your post it looks to me like you are sort of in the position of Neo having just awoken to the reality of the Matrix. So much doesn't make sense. For example you may still be living under the illusion that being lied to by government and media is the exception rather than the rule. I come along and say, no it is the rule, moreover, it is how we are ruled -- and this barely computes. It may be that you and I have been swimming in very different streams of information for a long, long time. I'm 62 years old and I began to suspect that something was "amiss" when I was still a boy -- but it took me a very long time to even begin to get some handle on what is really going on. I was a teenager when JFK was assassinated and all I can say is that the impact that had on our society was very similar in many ways to the impact that 9/11 had: utter shock. We were shocked. I was doubly shocked because, although I was only a boy, I was already suspicious and when, later, LBJ had the Presidential Limousine "dismantled" I was further shocked. But you know what REALLY shocked me? It wasn't that all that happened -- what REALLY got to me was the fact that for all their grief and upset, no one seemed to notice. That is right. Oh, it was reported -- but nothing was "made" of it. No one -- or, at least, no one who could not be marginalized -- questioned it.

So what I'm saying is that from my vantage point deception is the rule. I think most of us who "hang out" here on this forum agree with that principal. We may not agree, however, on just where the lines between truth and falsity, reality and delusion can accurately be drawn in every instance. What I see is that there is a tendency in humanity to be susceptible to a kind of on-going hypnotic suggestion that has become built into our whole world view. I'm of the opinion that we do not know our real history and, therefore, do not know who we really are, what we can actually achieve -- or precisely what is needed of us to break out of this (for lack of a better phrase) "spiritual prison" that we are ALL in (perps and victims alike).

I hope you'll pardon me. I am an artist and I tend toward the metaphysical and philosophical readings of the world around me. YMMV completely. The point I made in the earlier post in this thread is that I'm quite willing to live with a lot of ambiguity. In fact, I've become skeptical of "easy answers" -- NWO, Illuminati, Free Masons and all that. (Not that such things may not exist, just that we don't really understand them and, I think, have been led to have very false ideas about them -- ideas that give them far more prestige, prescience and power than they actually have.) I think the MOST IMPORTANT thing we can do is begin to understand ourselves from direct observation from the inside out. I think that is the one thing this world is set up to keep us from doing. It keeps us focused on the outer world all the time so that we never really look at and experience our own insight -- indeed, our own connection to the truly profound and ineffable. This keeps us feeling powerless and perplexed by a world that is literally going insane around us -- and increasingly sweeping us up in its madness.

So, I don't know if what I'm writing is the least bit of help. I'm here as are others because we were brought together from reading the 9/11 tea-leaves (so to speak). 9/11 is like a window, an opening, through which we can glimpse the workings of a covert operations matrix -- a deep politics that my friend Peter Dale Scott writes about -- and begin to understand that, politically, the world doesn't quite work the way we are led to believe.

The thing is, everyone believes it (more or less). I don't doubt that most employees of AA and United even in remarkably high positions have no doubt that their airliners were hijacked and crashed on 9/11 just as they've been told. They are as deceived as everyone else. But that can't be true all the way to the top. Someone somewhere does know. They may not know precisely what DID happen (everything in these ops are always on a 'need to know' basis and no one ever knows it all -- plausible deniability and all that) but they do know what didn't happen. If they are smart enough to be in a very high position of corporate authority I assume they also know enough to keep their mouths shut. The system teaches those who climb the ladders of success to 'keep their noses clean', as it were. There are just some questions you don't ask.

On a much lower level I see this on a daily basis. I have some very interesting friends, some of them quite monied and embedded in the social fabric as "responsible citizens." Almost all of these, in my case, are left of center people. They didn't like Bush and his policies; they donated to the Obama campaign, they worked for it, they voted for him and are delighted he is in office. People like this don't want to hear what I have to say. They are polite -- they take pity on me -- but I can tell that there is something in them that is afraid to really let it 'sink in'. IOW, talking about certain things falls into the very broad category of "social taboo" and an alternative perceptions of 9/11 is one such taboo.

I think this is how the real secrecy works. It is simple as that. If someone breaks the taboo and begins to seek for information and, worse, broadcast what they find then the machinery of the system comes into play: kill the messenger. They don't have to literally kill you. The wet work only comes on if they can find no other way -- or if you, yourself, are a player. Usually it is just marginalization and ostracism. Maybe you loose your job and are made fun of in the press. If you really KNOW something (few do) then you may be given the choice between the gold or the lead. That is, you take the money or they shoot you or your wife or one of your children and rule it a horrible accident or a suicide. But, again, that is the extreme (except in times of open conflict).

So, here we are. Take a deep breath. Get up and go for a walk. Hug your significant others. Sit down in a chair or on a meditation cushion and spend some time just getting to know yourself from the inside out. Take it all with a grain of salt. After all, these are OUR lives -- they were meant for us to learn something about the joys and sorrows of living and also about something else, something far more subtle, almost like a secret.

welcome.gif

Posted by: dMole Feb 28 2009, 07:34 PM

From Paul Thompson's page:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a100201raytheon#a100201raytheon

"October 2, 2001: Remote Controlled Passenger Airplane Flew Before 9/11, Despite Claims to the Contrary

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/376_raytheon_remote7272050081722-9278.jpg

A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]

It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001] Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [Independent Television News, 4/24/2001] However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that “the technology is pretty much there” but still untried. [Observer, 9/16/2001] An aviation-security expert at Jane’s Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs “in the realms of science fiction.” [Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001] Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research “new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.” [New York Times, 9/28/2001]

Posted by: dMole Mar 18 2009, 10:41 AM

Boeing 707 terrible impact crash


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T52xLN9luk&feature=related

Posted by: Freedomlover911 Apr 14 2009, 02:15 PM

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=16967&pid=10769974&st=0&#entry10769974

Posted by: dMole Apr 14 2009, 02:33 PM

That "proof" thread has been merged with the existing thread here (and is now post #24):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=14604&view=findpost&p=10769974

Posted by: dMole Apr 30 2009, 10:25 PM

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/questions/remote-flying/we-can-do-remote-control.txt

We can do remote control { September 28 2001 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0109280208sep28.story

War on terror - Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots

By Jeff Long
Tribune staff reporter
Published September 28, 2001

The military has been flying planes and landing them safely by
remote control for years, but airline pilots say questions about
security must be answered before that technology is used aboard
commercial jetliners to thwart hijackers the way President Bush
suggested Thursday during a speech in Chicago. Pentagon's
Predator drone attacks Afganistan and Iraq


"We will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our
airlines are safe," Bush said at O'Hare International Airport.
"... including technology to enable controllers to take over
distressed aircraft and land it by remote control."

Pilots said after the speech that though they support other
proposals for airplane security that Bush outlined, the idea of
aircraft being remotely controlled concerns them.

"If the good guys can take control of the plane" from the ground,
said John Mazor, a spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association,
"maybe the bad guys can take control of it too."

Taking control of a hijacked aircraft from the ground appears to
be less feasible than other measures, he said.

"We would view that as a very--very--long-term type of
undertaking," Mazor said. "There are enormous technical
difficulties in trying to rig up an aircraft for that."

But companies that have designed such systems for the military
say it wouldn't be difficult to adapt the technology for
commercial aircraft. Why did USAF pilots name the 1950s designed
Vietnam era F105 Thunderchief a THUD? Because it made a BIG THUD
when it hit the ground while using an autopilot with Low Altitude
Terrain Following RADAR


General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. developed a
remote-controlled reconnaissance plane for the Air Force called
Predator, which flew in Bosnia during the conflict there. Used by
the military since 1994, it can be landed by pilots linked by
satellite using controls on the ground or ordering an onboard
computer to do the job.

Tom Cassidy, president and CEO of the San Diego company, said he
sent Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta a letter shortly
after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Such a system would not prevent a hijacker from causing mayhem
on the aircraft or exploding a device and destroying the aircraft
in flight," the letter said, "but it would prevent him from
flying the aircraft into a building or populated areas."

Cassidy said Thursday that a pilot aboard a commercial airliner
could turn the plane's guidance over to ground controllers at the
press of a button, preventing a hijacker--or anyone else
aboard--from flying the plane.

That system also would keep people on the ground from taking
control of a plane away from the pilot, Cassidy said, because the
pilot would first have to give up control.

Aircraft anywhere in the nation could be remotely controlled from
just one or two locations using satellite links, Cassidy said.
Those locations could be heavily fortified against terrorists.

"The technology is available," Cassidy said. "We use it every
day."

Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune

Posted by: kahlmyishmael May 4 2009, 11:36 AM

John Lear on "Project Camelot" discounts the ability of "remote control" to be able to RELIABLY hit the towers... his premise is that the intent was to bring the WTC Towers down and that the use of "remote controlled" planes would be obviated due to "reliability concerns".

Couldn't the hijackers just simply turn on the "autopilot" to strike the towers?

Posted by: dMole May 5 2009, 03:04 AM

ScanEagle UAV Surpassed 50,000 Combat Flight Hours in Iraq
April 29th, 2008

The ScanEagle unmanned aircraft (UA), a joint effort of The Boeing Company and Insitu Inc., this month logged a pair of service milestones as it surpassed 50,000 combat flight hours with the U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEF) in Iraq and 1,000 shipboard recoveries with the U.S. Navy.

The long-endurance, fully autonomous ScanEagle entered service with the Marines in July 2004 and provides cost-effective and persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance services. The Navy has used ScanEagle since July 2005 aboard the USNS Stockham, USS Whidbey Island, USS Oscar Austin, USS Oak Hill and the USS Carter Hall.

http://frontierindia.net/scaneagle-uav-surpassed-50000-combat-flight-hours-in-iraq
--------------------------------------
ScanEagle UAV Logs 150,000 Service Hours in Iraq and Afghanistan
April 14, 2009 at 5:02 am

ST. LOUIS: The ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system (UAS), a joint effort of The Boeing Company and its subsidiary Insitu Inc., last week flew its 150,000th hour in service with the U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces, U.S. Navy, U.S. Special Operations Command, Australian Army and Canadian Forces. ScanEagle has provided persistent in-theater intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) to the joint forces in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004.

"Flying thousands of hours of ISR support in theater, month after month, requires a high degree of organization and teamwork," said Maj. Dan Griffiths, VMU-1 contracting officer technical representative, U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces. "The execution of that task falls on the shoulders of the ScanEagle field service representatives in theater. Day in and day out, they do whatever it takes to meet daily requirements."
----------------------------------------
Military's use of robotic drones in Iraq soars
Article from: SouthtownStar (Chicago, IL) Article date: January 2, 2008
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The military's reliance on unmanned aircraft that can
watch, hunt and sometimes kill insurgents has soared to more than
500,000 hours in the air, largely in Iraq, The Associated Press has
learned.

And new Defense Department figures obtained by The AP show the Air
Force more than doubled its monthly use of drones between January and
October, forcing it to take pilots out of the air and shift them to
remote flying duty to meet part of the demand.

http://www.newser.com/archive-world-news/1N1-11E46975EA6AFE58/militarys-use-of-robotic-drones-in-iraq-soars.html
----------------------------------------------
Report: UAV use has doubled over 9 months
By Lolita C. Baldor - The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Jan 3, 2008 7:56:59 EST

WASHINGTON— The military’s reliance on unmanned aircraft that can watch, hunt and sometimes kill insurgents has soared to more than 500,000 hours in the air, largely in Iraq, the Associated Press has learned.

And new Defense Department figures obtained by the AP show that the Air Force more than doubled its monthly use of drones between January and October, forcing it to take pilots out of the air and shift them to remote flying duty to meet part of the demand.

The dramatic increase in the development and use of drones across the armed services reflects what will be an even more aggressive effort over the next 25 years, according to the new report.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/ap_uav_080101/
-------------------------------
"... Predator UAVs have been operational in Bosnia since 1995 in support of Nato, UN and US operations and as part of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, flying over 500,000 flight hours on over 50,000 flights. ...."

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/

Posted by: dMole Jun 18 2009, 09:14 PM

GPS ALERT
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Marlborough - Oct. 1, 2001
A government-industry team accomplished the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military Global Positioning System (GPS) landing system Aug. 25 at Holloman AFB, N.M., Raytheon Company announced today.

A FedEx Express 727-200 Aircraft equipped with a Rockwell-Collins GNLU-930 Multi-Mode Receiver landed using a Raytheon-developed military ground station. Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program.

The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology.

Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.

The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station. "The consistency of the approaches allowed us to proceed to actual autolandings with very little delay," said Steve Kuhar, Senior Technical Advisor Flight Department for FedEx Express.

The aircraft was guided by differential GPS corrections, integrity information, and precision approach path points transmitted from the Raytheon developed JPALS ground station. Although the approaches were restricted to Category I, accuracies sufficient to meet Cat II/III requirements were observed.

Raytheon is the world leader in designing and building satellite-based navigation and landing solutions for civil and military applications. In addition to developing JPALS for the Department of Defense, Raytheon is also developing both the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for the Federal Aviation Administration. The JPALS and LAAS will provide an interoperable landing capability for military and civil applications.

"Raytheon is committed to developing and deploying satellite based navigation and landing systems for the military and the flying public," said Bob Eckel, Raytheon vice president for Air Traffic Management. "We understand the importance of this technology and are proud to be a part of the success achieved this summer during JPALS testing at Holloman."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-01k.html

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)