Asking For Some Clarification..., What is and is not likely... Options

[Omega892R09]

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):

de Havilland Queen Bee

[dMz]

Ah Omega892R09...

I kneel--- both humbled and corrected sir. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/worthy.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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 (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ]

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

(IMG:http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/FAAAlogo_small.gif)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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.

[Omega892R09]

Ah Omega892R09...

I kneel--- both humbled and corrected sir. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/worthy.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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 (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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.

A Scotsman, John Logie Baird.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Sep 14 2008, 03:56 PM

[dMz]

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/Aircr...ingFortress.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

Well this is errr.... "odd." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/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_plan.../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 B Air Mobility Command Museum Dover AFB (DE)
Displayed as "2107112 Sleepy Time Gal""
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/presbrcp.htm

Is someone re-writing history again?

[dMz]

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

[amazed!]

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.

[FlightForTruth]

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

[Sanders]

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)

[painter]

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.

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

[dMz]

From Paul Thompson's page:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...a100201raytheon

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

http://www.historycommons.org/events-image...081722-9278.jpg
(IMG: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]

[dMz]

Boeing 707 terrible impact crash


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

[Freedomlover911]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10769974

[dMz]

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769974

[dMz]

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=9-11/qu...ote-control.txt

We can do remote control { September 28 2001 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/c...0208sep28.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

[kahlmyishmael]

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?

[dMz]

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-sur...t-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/1...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/

[dMz]

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