How Much Faith Do You Put In The "unpiloted Jets" Theory, Merged with Fighter Controlled Jet is Tested Options

[georgie101]

[merged by d from "Fighter Controlled Jet Is Tested" previously in Latest News and moved from UA175 to Aircraft for better visibility]

The trial flight, carried out at Boscombe Down airfield in Wiltshire, is part of a programme to develop a system that would enable a single pilot to control a number of unmanned aircraft by remote control.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6514413.stm

[hardloperhans]

This is just the technology we have been waiting for since 9/11.

As Dr Spock would say in such a moment:
"Fascinating".

[georgie101]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure this technology has been around longer than they are making out. Question is, how long?

[biggahthebettah]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure this technology has been around longer than they are making out. Question is, how long?

I think hardloperhans was trying to say that we've probably had this technology WELL before 9/11.

my thoughts exactly.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[Guest_Brainwashed_*]

[Original 1st post before merged by d with "Fighter Controlled Jet is Tested" from Latest News]

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

Is the possibility even realistic?

By the way, sorry to the staff if this is in the wrong section.

[grizz]

Somebody might move this, Brain. No problem.

I can't watch video on the computer I'm on right now, but personally I think the two planes that hit in New York were unmanned. We know the technology existed.

It's pretty conclusive that there never were any hijackers on board. Who else would fly a plane into a building knowing they would die in the process?

We're not even sure if AA11 and AA77 even took off that day. There seems to be no official record of either flight departing.

The more we know the more we don't know in this hall of mirrors.

[Sanders]

I couldn't have said it better, OF. All smoke and mirrors !!! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[painter]

yes, I think it is "realistic" in that such technology exists.

Just what happened, though, is a big unanswered question.

[Omega892R09]

Just what happened, though, is a big unanswered question.

I figure that the producers of the likes of 'Die Hard' would have some clues.

[lunk]

It's pretty conclusive that there never were any hijackers on board. Who else would fly a plane into a building knowing they would die in the process?

Unmanned, for this reason alone.

imo, lunk

[airshow]

I'm going to have read the instructions on how to post in the right places. I have a few points to throw out and see if anyone with more insight can add their thoughts. Both planes that hit the WTC's, had flashes just prior to hitting the buildings. Much has been made about these and some have discounted these as proof that missiles were not fired from the a/c as there was no damage to the building at the time. In a video compilation on YouTube of the 2nd WTC hit, one close-up segment confirms what I thought, that the flash was not a reflection from a window breaking, or from a penetration or rupture of the exterior wall. What in fact both videos show is the commonality of these flashes.

Both were on the starboard side. Both flashes appear just as the nose was within 5 - 10 feet of the exterior wall. Both flashes (can be seen in the close-up of the second hit) increase in intensity as the a/c gets closer. The second flash (the second hit), which can be examined in better detail, is still evident as the nose penetrates the building, and the flash disappears as the fuselage enters the building at a point that is equivalent to the front portion of the 'unusual' object. Just forward of the leading edge at the wing root. At this point, when it disappears, there is still no damage to the portion of building where the flash (or reflection) was seen. To me, it clearly indicates that the flash was caused by something on the a/c. And that it was caused by something that emanated from between aft of the cockpit and forward of the wind root from the starboard side. So as the a/c came closer, the reflection on the window or building, grew and then disappeared as the wing root entered the building. Hope I explain this right.

Now as a controller I have gotten used to parallax and perspective in relationship to an a/c's speed, direction and it's size. I have also developed a keen eye for things that are out of place, in spite of lighting conditions. Controllers just seem to develop a certain sense about how an a/c should appear in the sky. After viewing the mpegs of the various angles of the flight that hit the second building almost a few thousand times, I would have to say that the flight looked very much like a large airliner as it approached. The spped and perspective was right. I thought that 5 seconds prior to the hit, the pilot corrected quite a bit to the left and down in order to make his intended target. (Not saying the pilot was aboard) However, the unusual addition underneath the a/c is definitely not something of the ordinary. Having viewed it time and time again, I too would have to think that something has been added under the starboard portion of the fuselage. I can not tell if it would interfere with the gear, but the object is inline with the flash that appears just prior to the hit.

I also tried to get a sense of the colour schemes of the second a/c, and although the frame by frame analysis shows little detail, I did get the feeling that the a/c was more of a military colour than commercial aviation.

I do not have any military background (In Canada we try to be friends with everyone and there fore our military is not quite up to American standards) and therefore have little knowledge of weapons or aiming devices, but I keep coming to the conclusion that the flash came from the aircraft, from a point under the fuseage, to the right side and just forward of the leading edge of the wing.

Now one more point. When talking about a missile or a bomb, some people counter that the building wasn't penetrated by anything other than the a/c. But then does a missile have to strike a target on it's own? Can it not be "carried" into a target.....the building? That both buildings exhibited the flash, at the same points, and that they disappeared at the same points, and that the major explosions were well after the flashes disappeared, is strong evidence that something on each flight had a common element.

Hope this makes sense. In terms of the Pentagon crash, did an eyewitness also not describe seeing a flash just prior to the hit? Long post...sorry.

[dMz]

Related info on remotely piloted aircraft is at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10671830

EDIT: More related info is at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....ed+remote+drone

This post has been edited by dMole: Sep 12 2008, 12:18 PM