IPB




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

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

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was UA175 Controlled By Remote?

Freedomlover911
post Apr 14 2009, 03:12 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Call me befuddled...I posted this only an hour ago and it was deleted (not deleted, it was moved to "Alternative" after all). I can't think of anything more pertinent to this "Flight 175" subject line than the video I created and posted to my Youtube channel. Whether the admins of this site agree with me or not, I have shown evidence culled from actual video that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Flight 175 was a remote controlled plane. My background is in guidance systems and the evidence shown is in line with the technology I was intimately familiar with during my stint in the Navy.

The video is called "Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11" and is posted on my site:
www.youtube.com/freedomlover911
Be sure to watch the video on its own page to see comments I've added in reply to many FAQs.

Whether you agree with me or not, I would appreciate comments and analysis of my findings on this message board.
Freedomlover911

Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11 (original)

(from earlier)
QUOTE (dMole @ Apr 12 2009, 07:06 PM) *
"Proof" and "confirmed" are words that should be used carefully on this forum, due to the Forum Rules and P4T Organization policy about speculation. For example a thread title like "Proof That 175 Was Controlled By Remote, Now, why was my last post deleted???" in one of the research forums.


I see your point dMole. I had no idea there was a rule about presenting what one may consider proof by actually calling it "proof". Were I some rookie with no background in the subject matter I should be slapped down for claiming to know something which I do not. Although I have had contact with others having the same background and even one person who claimed to have actually been involved in designing early NIR guidance systems all back me up in my findings, I still feel like a man on an island trying to explain this thing. Because of my background, I do not take the word "proof" lightly. Had I no experience at all in guidance/targeting systems, this would indeed have to be described by myself as "speculation" or "theory".

Now I understand why this keeps getting moved to "alternative" LOL. This is quite likely an allegory to how Columbus must have felt when he tried to explain to folks that the earth was round. Even Copernicus was excommunicated for describing his discovery that the Earth wasn't the center of our solar system. Not that I'm on any level comparable to these two famous historical figures...I just happened to have certain life experiences that put me in a place of understanding and knowledge of certain events and technology. I'm just lucky is all...and that's on the level
Peace
FL911

PS: I really suck at posting stuff on this new forum! I guess I need more practice smile.gif

This post has been edited by Freedomlover911: Apr 14 2009, 04:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Apr 14 2009, 03:30 PM
Post #2





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



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....sult_type=posts

< shrugs >
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Apr 14 2009, 03:49 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



QUOTE (JFK @ Apr 12 2009, 05:30 PM) *


Cool trick JFK! It's been a long time no see!
Peace
FL911
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Apr 14 2009, 04:17 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

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



Merged with existing thread- now post #24
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769974

see also Lobby post #3
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769991

Notice and link were at post #33 in 2nd UA175 thread (and this is now the 3rd UA175 thread about this today):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10769980

Title edited from "Proof That 175 Was Controlled By Remote, Now, why was my last post deleted???"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Apr 14 2009, 04:32 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Nice objective title rewrite. LOL

Thanks dMole

FL911
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kraig
post Apr 22 2009, 02:02 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 2
Joined: 5-May 08
Member No.: 3,281



I have a question for you since your background is in guidance systems. I know there has been technology for quite some time to fly a plane remotely, when some work has been done to make it possible. However, do you think it would be possible for a highly skilled and highly trained special forces type team to take over a flight mid-air and install some kind of remote control or guidance system on the fly?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 22 2009, 05:50 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Kraig @ Apr 22 2009, 11:02 AM) *
I have a question for you since your background is in guidance systems. I know there has been technology for quite some time to fly a plane remotely, when some work has been done to make it possible. However, do you think it would be possible for a highly skilled and highly trained special forces type team to take over a flight mid-air and install some kind of remote control or guidance system on the fly?


qrs11

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10684315

I think this would have to be installed ahead of time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 13 2013, 02:11 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



'According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:

AA 11 departs San Francisco (SFO): AA 09/10/2001 0198 (flight number) N334AA (tail number) BOS (destination) 22:04 (wheels-off time)

UA 175 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0170 (flight number) N612UA (tail number) BOS (destination) 13:44 (wheels-off time)

UA 93 departs San Francisco (SFO): UA 09/10/2001 0078 (flight number) N591UA (tail number) EWR (destination) 23:15 (wheels-off time)
'

~ http://911blogger-bans-truth.com/node/20456

'Life Sized REMOTE CONTROL Hummer - Amazing!'
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaiIcI1xaLU

'Radio controlled cars - Top Gear - BBC'
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35sUu0u8bk

Video camera footage from a remotely-controlled toy, flying over New York City:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9cSxEqKQ78

'Boeing Modifies F-16 Fighter Jet To Fly Without Pilot'

~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQpvwOfY8m8
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 14 2013, 03:00 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Pretty eyebrow-raising:

'Logan Airport, Boston United Airlines Aircraft Maintenance Hangar

In 2000, United Airlines approached Rubb about replacing the 757 line-maintenance hangar we constructed for them in 1993 with a larger structure to service Boeing 777 aircraft. The new hangar needed to be built on the same site as the existing building while minimizing downtime of United's maintenance capability. To accommodate this, Rubb began foundation work for the new hangar while still disassembling the existing facility, and designed the building schedule such that United could use the new maintenance facility while internal systems work was still being completed by subcontractors.
' ~ http://www.rubbusa.com/aircraft-hangars/pr...t-boston-ma.php

'American Airlines Hangar at Logan International Airport (Boston, Massachusetts)':
http://wikimapia.org/9608280/American-Airl...ational-Airport

'[United Airlines' largest maintenance facility] Owned by SFO but primarily used by UA and also used by AA.' ~ http://wikimapia.org/27747396/Superbay-Maintenance-Facility

UNITED AIRLINES SUPERBAY
UA SUPERBAY AT SFO INTERNATIONAL
SAN FRANCISCO INTNL AIRPORT, CA 94128
EPA Registry Id: 110008264635
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th September 2014 - 07:55 PM