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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Remote-control

albertchampion
post Dec 16 2008, 02:06 AM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



perhaps you have also encountered those who laugh at the notion of remotely-controlled aircraft. my experiences have been that anyone imagining such a circumstance[s] is considered a lunatic. that such an idea is too preposterous for consideration.

air & space smithsonian is a very informative journal. today i received my january 2009 issue. on page 26 is an article entitled, WHERE HAVE ALL THE PHANTOMS GONE?.

though a lot of detail goes undiscussed, essentially it is the story of how BAE SYSTEMS "installs digital systems for controlling the drones' steering, throttles, flaps, landing gear, brakes, and more."

the article doesn't examine this remote-control program, operated by the usaf, in great detail. but it would be my guess that the usaf was remotely-controlling aircraft for years prior to 11/09/01.

and that british aerospace has been the long-term prime contractor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 16 2008, 02:23 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Dec 15 2008, 11:06 PM) *
perhaps you have also encountered those who laugh at the notion of remotely-controlled aircraft.

Repeatedly... and then some albert. rolleyes.gif

Asking For Some Clarification..., What is and is not likely...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10700

Remote Control, Was remote control of the 9/11 airplanes possible?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15724

From my research Boeing and the US AAF (later USAF) began such business back in WW2. Thanks to Omega892's expertise, we know that the De Havilland Queen Bee was flown so as early as Oct 1931 in the UK.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10752050

I usually ask such people what the acronym UAV stands for (and Raytheon was interested in having me design/build such beasts for them a while back). I usually get that "deer in the headlights" glazed-over look at that point.

EDIT: If that doesn't work, I usually ask them a bit about the history of manned vs. unmanned space flight. That one never fails.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Dec 16 2008, 04:15 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



yes, too true.

and that is all i care to say for now. but, as you undoubtedly know, aviation week and its successor awst devoted some ink to remote controlling of aircraft over the last 50 years.

it was an effort that received white and also black budget funding.

why does the populace want to be so ignorant?

this blackbush and his rockefeller acolytes have finally pushed me to really consider escaping the usa.

i figure it is end of the world time. and where would i like to expire. 12 years ago i explored hobart, tasmania. it reminded me of san francisco in 1900. i don't know if it is all that congenial for a curmudgeon. but i am thinking of renting a space there for a year. trying it out.

while the rest of the "civilized" world descends into chaos.

so it goes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 16 2008, 04:55 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Select few in this country are trained to "think like a missile" for whatever reasons. They are then expected to build and program them with an extreme rate of successful destruction. I really CANNOT elaborate much further on this topic, but I wasn't involved in that MIIC world in Sep 2001. I have my definite opinions or "profile" if you will on how I would approach such a nefarious PNAC-ian task. It really wouldn't be as difficult as Uncle GUS' loyalist "debunkers" seem to or get paid to want to believe.

A rather substantial portion of the "gears" in the MIIC machine are both retiring and expiring lately. A large number of these "gears" were imported from the post-war Reich. So many "compartments..."

Here is a bit on guided weapons, and the technologies really aren't all that dissimilar with avionics:

A Brief History of Precision Guided Weapons
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tws10.htm

P.S. 600 MPH really isn't all that "fast..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Dec 16 2008, 12:58 PM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Since the 80's advanced airliners have had the ability to do CAT III landings

I experieinced one at Lexington KY in an L1011 in zero zero IMC

it was an extremely smooth landing -- I had a window seat and could not see the runway until we touched down

The captain explained what was happening

driving a 767/757 into building is no different

simply program the FMC for the correct altitude and GPS coordinates

with WAAS GPS the accuracy is probably less than a couple feet -- even my 10 year old Garmin in the 170 is routinely has less than 15 feet of error
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Dec 16 2008, 10:13 PM
Post #6





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



Remote control is high on my list of possibilities.

It would explain the uncanny piloting skills of the "hijackers".

It would be additional insurance that events would unfold as planned.

It would explain why selected CVRs and FDRs were never found or unreadable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Dec 17 2008, 08:31 AM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Dec 15 2008, 01:13 AM) *
Remote control is high on my list of possibilities.

It would explain the uncanny piloting skills of the "hijackers".

It would be additional insurance that events would unfold as planned.

It would explain why selected CVRs and FDRs were never found or unreadable.

I am with you all the way there. I have known enough about remote control to make it not just a strong possibility but a high probability for use that day.

This coupled with the possibility that an extraordinary fuel load was carried leads us to who now? Hint, think tankers.

Now if you are going to use substitute aircraft of a specialist type then with that much money missing from the DOD budget it isn't hard to envisage other 'special' MODs being fitted. These could include strengthened wing leading edges and missile launchers under the nose.

One only has to look at the tasks of the Boeing RC-135V Rivet Joint to appreciate that, as with the KC 135 tankers based on the venerable 707, 767 or 757 variants could be developed. Especially with a few trillion dollars of DOD money sloshing around unaccounted for.

I have been involved in designing and fitting special fits to military aircraft in my day so have some appreciation of the possibilities.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 17 2008, 09:00 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Dec 17 2008, 05:31 AM) *
These could include strengthened wing leading edges and missile launchers under the nose.
...
Especially with a few trillion dollars of DOD money sloshing around unaccounted for.

And could include submarine/torpedo "tech..." [cough * STFU dMole! * cough]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sweetfreedom223
post Dec 19 2008, 06:56 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 3
Joined: 19-December 08
Member No.: 4,034



It's also an easily verifiable fact that the Lufwaffe in WWII conducted tests with, and fielded remote controlled aircraft. One of the better documented projects was called "Mistel". It was a parasite type of system. A fighter plane would ride piggy back on a remote controlled flying bomb. When in range, the pilot would detach from the flying bomb and a second crewman in the fighter would guide the remote plane/flying bomb into it's target. They used a bunch of different combinations. One was a 2 seat version of the Me-262 jet riding on top of a pilotless Me-262 which was the flying bomb. They also would mount a modified Fw-190 fighter on top of a massive Heinkel twin engine bomber converted to be flown R/C with a massive shaped charge warhead where the cockpit used to be. Of course, if you really want to make your point, tell your skeptic that the Voyager spacecraft, which is further away from earth than any other man made device has ever been, was under remote control during the Jupiter and various other planet fly-by's all those years ago. We can remotely contol a spacecraft that's as far away as the outer planets of our solar system, but we cannot remotely control an aircraft from Earth, on Earth? ignorance is bliss for some people I guess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 19 2008, 11:00 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaluftwaffegroundweapons.htm

Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Strategic Bombers, 1935-1945 v. 2 (Hardcover)
by Dieter Herwig (Author), Heinz Rode (Author)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Luftwaffe-Secret-P...5/dp/1857800923

Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend (Paperback)
by Joseph P. Farrell

http://www.amazon.com/Reich-Black-Sun-Secr...s/dp/1931882398

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrodway
post Dec 20 2008, 12:59 AM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 283
Joined: 5-August 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,609



Are there any real engineers claiming that remote control of an aircraft is an impossibility?

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Dec 14 2008, 06:15 AM) *
this blackbush and his rockefeller acolytes have finally pushed me to really consider escaping the usa.

i figure it is end of the world time. and where would i like to expire. 12 years ago i explored hobart, tasmania. it reminded me of san francisco in 1900. i don't know if it is all that congenial for a curmudgeon. but i am thinking of renting a space there for a year. trying it out.


Well, I would welcome you down here albertchampion!

I live a short distance from Hobart myself.

Unfortunately I can't say that the population is particularly enlightened about what is going on in the world. The prevailing attitude is that 9/11 was only a problem for the US and it has nothing to do with them. However the locals are reasonably friendly as long as you don't interfere with their own grubby little conspiracies. (Like what happened to that Tiger Moth for instance. http://www.brendahean.com/ )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jun 11 2009, 01:15 AM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (albertchampion @ Dec 16 2008, 02:06 AM) *
perhaps you have also encountered those who laugh at the notion of remotely-controlled aircraft. my experiences have been that anyone imagining such a circumstance[s] is considered a lunatic. that such an idea is too preposterous for consideration.

air & space smithsonian is a very informative journal. today i received my january 2009 issue. on page 26 is an article entitled, WHERE HAVE ALL THE PHANTOMS GONE?.

though a lot of detail goes undiscussed, essentially it is the story of how BAE SYSTEMS "installs digital systems for controlling the drones' steering, throttles, flaps, landing gear, brakes, and more."

the article doesn't examine this remote-control program, operated by the usaf, in great detail. but it would be my guess that the usaf was remotely-controlling aircraft for years prior to 11/09/01.

and that british aerospace has been the long-term prime contractor.


I came across this tonight - (see narative, last line, " The remote controlled aircraft crashed on landing and burst into flames.")

QUOTE
Accident description

Date: 01 DEC 1984
Type: Boeing 720-027
Operator: NASA
Registration: N833NA
C/n / msn: 18066/208
First flight: 1961
Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0
Airplane damage: Written off
Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location: Edwards AFB, CA (EDW) (United States of America)
Phase: Landing (LDG)
Nature: Test
Departure airport: Edwards AFB, CA (EDW/KEDW), United States of America
Destination airport: Edwards AFB, CA (EDW/KEDW), United States of America

Narrative:
The aircraft was used in a crash test to test fuel fire retardant. The remote controlled aircraft crashed on landing and burst into flames.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 16 2009, 05:32 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Guided in, above and behind, from flying small jet powered UAV platform IR laser. Invisible to the eye, but picked up by video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

or:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4650204243222697402

This post has been edited by lunk: Jun 16 2009, 05:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliesierra
post Jun 29 2009, 12:51 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 23-June 09
Member No.: 4,416



QUOTE (mrodway @ Dec 20 2008, 06:59 AM) *
Are there any real engineers claiming that remote control of an aircraft is an impossibility?


I'm more than pleased to be able to provide an answer to that:

http://www.911myths.com/images/5/5b/Remote_Takeover.pdf

from http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

An excerpt;

QUOTE
Conclusion
With modern technology, almost anything is possible; certainly "robo-jets" are possible. The purpose of this essay
was to show that taking over an airliner via "remote control" is not as easy as The Lone Gunmen pilot episode
made it look. There is no button a ground controller can push to magically take control of an airplane. But, even if
there was, the pilots could thwart the takeover attempt by killing the power anyways.
If I was planning a conspiracy that would involve taking over airliners and crashing them into predetermined
targets, I might choose a 777 or an Airbus A330/340. These are FBW aircraft, so you can't simply remove
electrical power if you want control of the airplane. I might also use a DC-10 or a 747 Classic, no EICAS to
worry about. To me, the 757/767 is simply the worst choice as a "robojet", unless you completely redesigned the
plane.
I hope this essay has been helpful. The difficulty of turning an airliner into a cruise missile is probably common
sense for most sensible folks; but I think itís an important topic as it relates to 9/11, so I decided to tackle it from a
technical standpoint. The information presented on the aircrafts systems is accurate, as itís summarized from the
"Description and Operation" sections of the 757/767 Maintenance Manuals. Thanks to Mike W for inviting me to
write this for his wonderful site. Also, thanks to Bogglehead from the ScrewLooseChange blog, who got me
thinking about this topic in the first place. Feel free to contact me with any suggestions or questions at :
apathoid@earthlink.net.


I see one huge issue with apathoid's lengthy and expertise opinion. He states "To me, the 757/767 is simply the worst choice as a "robojet", unless you completely redesigned the
plane."

Unless !

To put so much effort into supposedly debunking the R/C idea, only to disolve it all in a few words. Tsk tsk.

Let us assume this was indeed the case. The birds used that day on WTCs 1 & 2 were "completely redesigned" to R/C. We know this is technically achievable. Or would anyone care to slap that down?

Assuming this is acceptable as a possibility. Debunkers and OCT Lemmings will be the first to ask us "how did they "completely redesign" the birds without anyone noticing?

From there, the questions branch into "what did they do with the real UA175 (e.g.)?

Folks, it realy doesn't matter, for me. Fact is, it can be done, a la "Yes we can"!

Yes, they did. Your thoughts?

P.S. I've been asked to write a short article on my view of what went down and R/C + the uncanny approach pattern of UA175 will play a major role, added a few other very coincidental tidbits from that day. If there's anything you good people can add at this point, it would be much appreciated.

cs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliesierra
post Jun 29 2009, 01:12 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 23-June 09
Member No.: 4,416



P.S. I'm not an expert on any subject at all and imho, experts have done a good job of taking the ball far too far from the playing field, leaving most non-experts yawning. Thus, my article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jun 29 2009, 08:04 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



For the time needed to get all the thermite into the towers,
the demolition of the towers must have been planned, at least months in advance.
Alowing for lots of time to prepare and fit aircrafts with remote control,
and probably very dramatic thermobaraks, as well.

ya, more like cruise misiles, than airplanes.

This also could be the reason for the viideo anomolies or manipulation,
misleading some to think that there were no planes at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Jul 14 2009, 05:12 PM
Post #17





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17162.h...

This conversation rang a bell with me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...5x147912#147919

I remembered an alleged incident that had to do with a dustup prior to 9/11 where a couple of Boeings showed up in Germany with some "extra" equipment - an autopilot capable of being taken over externally and remotely piloting the aircraft. The links above (informationclearinghouse) pertain, also the story of Joe Vialls - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Vialls

Perhaps not so much custom engineering would be required as one might think. Or has all this been debunked? It disappeared off my radar early on, but the technology has obviously been around since the '60's, at least.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 14 2009, 06:40 PM
Post #18





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (charliesierra @ Jun 29 2009, 12:51 PM) *
I'm more than pleased to be able to provide an answer to that:

http://www.911myths.com/images/5/5b/Remote_Takeover.pdf

from http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175

An excerpt;



I see one huge issue with apathoid's lengthy and expertise opinion. He states "To me, the 757/767 is simply the worst choice as a "robojet", unless you completely redesigned the
plane."

Unless !

To put so much effort into supposedly debunking the R/C idea, only to disolve it all in a few words. Tsk tsk.

Let us assume this was indeed the case. The birds used that day on WTCs 1 & 2 were "completely redesigned" to R/C. We know this is technically achievable. Or would anyone care to slap that down?

Assuming this is acceptable as a possibility. Debunkers and OCT Lemmings will be the first to ask us "how did they "completely redesign" the birds without anyone noticing?

From there, the questions branch into "what did they do with the real UA175 (e.g.)?

Folks, it realy doesn't matter, for me. Fact is, it can be done, a la "Yes we can"!

Yes, they did. Your thoughts?

P.S. I've been asked to write a short article on my view of what went down and R/C + the uncanny approach pattern of UA175 will play a major role, added a few other very coincidental tidbits from that day. If there's anything you good people can add at this point, it would be much appreciated.

cs


Read this carefully...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Jul 18 2009, 01:56 AM
Post #19





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



Nasa 1984
Boeing 720

Remote Control Flight


Listen very carefully
QF-4- Remote Controlled since 1996
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 18 2009, 04:56 AM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (charliesierra @ Jun 29 2009, 10:51 AM) *
Assuming this is acceptable as a possibility. Debunkers and OCT Lemmings will be the first to ask us "how did they "completely redesign" the birds without anyone noticing?

See posts #6 and #8 here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774010

whistle.gif rolleyes.gif

EDIT: And here:

Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years of Lockheed
http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal...d/dp/0316743003

Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works: The Official History
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-Martins-Sku...l/dp/1857800370

Lockheed Stealth
http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-Stealth-Bil...n/dp/0760308527

Kelly Johnson's "14 Rules"
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/...ks/14rules.html

14+? whistle.gif
http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/u-2a/u-2_kellys_rules.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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 October 2018 - 04:07 AM