NASA and FAA—The Remotely Controlled Boeing 720 Crash Experiment

NASA and the Remotely Controlled Boeing 720 Crash Experiment

Before now, I never had any belief that 9/11 could have been carried out via remotely controlling the aircrafts from the ground. But man, my reality of the probability of it being an absolute possibility has changed 100%.

On December 1, 1984 NASA and the FAA conducted a Controlled Impact Demonstration via remotely controlling a Boeing 720 to test a potential fuel additive called, FM-9, that had demonstrated prior positive preliminary simulation data for controlling post-crash fires.

The Boeing 720 experimental crash landing objective:

an intentional crash-landing of the remotely piloted aircraft into several steel structures set up on the bed of Rogers Dry Lake at Edwards Air Force Base to breach the fuel tanks in the wings.

The other experimental arms included:


In addition to the fuels research, NASA's Langley Research Center conducted a structural loads measurement experiment that included having instrumented dummies occupy seats in the passenger cabin. The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fireproof materials, and burn-resistant windows.

NASA's pilot that remotely controlled the Boeing 720 conducted 14 preliminary remotely controlled flights from a ground base which included:

During the 14 flights, the Boeing 720 was controlled remotely by a pilot at a ground-based console for 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 controlled landing approaches, and 13 landings on the abort runway.

Despite the several years of prior research and the millions of dollars spent towards this experiment, it resulted in:

The Controlled Impact Demonstration marked the end of FAA attempts to order airlines to use the anti-misting additive in fuel for airliners. Although proponents argued that the modified fuel prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the test, FAA requirements for the additive were cancelled.

The reasoning?

The demonstration underlined an often-overlooked aspect of aeronautical research. Although the small-scale ground tests had indicated that the anti-misting additive would be effective in reducing post-crash fires, the full-scale demonstration in a real-world flight environment showed that the modified anti-misting fuel was ineffective in reducing the propagation or intensity of fire.

The outcome of the experiment?

Cameras inside the airliner showed the crash dummies being shaken and small panels falling during the crash-landing, although the seats remained attached to the floor. The new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, fireproof materials and windows were tested under real-world conditions. Research data from the project in these areas yielded new data on impact survivability that helped the FAA establish new rules regarding fire prevention and fire-retardant materials.

NASA Armstrong Fact Sheet: Controlled Impact Demonstration


Keep in mind that 1984 was a remarkable year for NASA:

• January 1, 1984
Ronald Reagan announced before Congress that NASA would develop a manned space station
January 1984 - Future Space Station Announced

• February 3, 1984
NASA Mission STS-41B: WESTAR-VI, Manned Maneuvering Unit, PALAPA-B2, First KSC Landing
STS-41B

• April 6, 1984
NASA Mission STS-41C:
Long Duration Exposure Facility deploy, first on-orbit spacecraft repair
STS-41C

• Aug. 30, 1984
NASA Mission STS-41D:
SBS-D; Satellite Business System SYNCOM IV-2; Solar Wing TELSTAR
STS-41D

• Oct. 5, 1984
NASA Mission STS-41G:
Earth Radiation Budget Satellite, Office of Space and Terrestrial Applications-3
STS-41G

• Nov. 8, 1984
NASA Mission STS-51A:
TELESAT-H, Canadian communications satellite, SYNCOM IV-1 defense communications satellite
STS-51A


The Bush Presidents

Aside from the fact that the Bush family has strong ties with the Saudis—

• George H. W. Bush United States President 1988—1992

Not quite 19 upon receiving his wings, he flew TBM Avenger torpedo bombers from the carrier USS San Jacinto in 1944. It was said that Bush was “one of Grumman’s best customers,”

• George W. Bush, United States President 2000—2008

briefly flew Convair F-102 interceptors while serving in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1974, but didn’t see combat.

From Pilot to President


• Bodies were never recovered from the 9/11 WTC planes (I cannot find any proof), but a passport, which was made of paper materials that was aboard the plane remained intact, floated to the ground virtually unharmed, and recovered easily amongst the destruction.

• Did the United States have the capabilities to remotely control Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s in the year of 2001?
Yes.

• This is the video of the remotely controlled Boeing 720 intentional crash-landing experiment. There is some very revealing data to be seen from this video.

Controlled Impact Demonstration 1984 NASA FAA CID Test Video

a reply to: M4ngo

Drones are nothing new, they have been used since the begining of aviation :

The Secret History of World War II-Era Drones

The first “drones” were actually balloons, first deployed by Austria in 1849. They came equipped with long copper wires that operators used to remotely trigger bombs, which would fall and explode on impact. These didn’t quite catch on, for obvious reasons—they floated in any direction, including back towards the way they came. Other inventors drew up plans for remote-controlled dirigibles that never got off the ground (as it were).

But in the 1910s, the US began hooking up unused warplanes with autopilot systems that the military could control remotely. These systems relied on new tech that had just come online: The Kettering Bug, developed for the Army’s Air force just before World War I, used gyroscopes to keep itself stabilized. Pressure sensors kept the aircraft at a certain altitude, while its operator could calculate how far it traveled by keeping track of the rate its propellers were rotating. These “aerial torpedoes” were still fairly rudimentary, though—they could only travel in a straight line, which made them useless for more targeted strikes. “You’d launch them into some area, like a city, where they’re bound to hit something,” Everett says. They were never actually deployed.

Later, operators wielding joysticks could actually steer planes from afar. Essentially, whoever was controlling the plane would use a transmitter to send radio signals to a radio receiver on the plane, which would control a motor that turned the plane’s steering wheel or pressed flight-control buttons. The controller had to fly behind the drone itself in a mothership, because the connection petered out after a few miles.

These first systems were, unsurprisingly, fraught with problems. “Control systems were being developed in a very hurried fashion and they were very new, so they didn’t perform very well at first,” Everett says. Radio interference meant choppy connections, which made the actual planes difficult to direct. Traveling in motherships posed a tactical problem: They were slow, large, and obvious—in other words, easy targets. And operators who rode in the motherships had a hard time actually controlling the drones, since they were observing from afar. Brand new TV sets, installed in the planes in the late 1920s and early 1930s, helped, but they still weren’t perfect. “The picture quality wasn’t that good even when the sets were working correctly,” Everett says.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

Drones are nothing new, they have been used since the begining of aviation :

The Secret History of World War II-Era Drones

The first “drones” were actually balloons, first deployed by Austria in 1849. They came equipped with long copper wires that operators used to remotely trigger bombs, which would fall and explode on impact. These didn’t quite catch on, for obvious reasons—they floated in any direction, including back towards the way they came. Other inventors drew up plans for remote-controlled dirigibles that never got off the ground (as it were).

But in the 1910s, the US began hooking up unused warplanes with autopilot systems that the military could control remotely. These systems relied on new tech that had just come online: The Kettering Bug, developed for the Army’s Air force just before World War I, used gyroscopes to keep itself stabilized. Pressure sensors kept the aircraft at a certain altitude, while its operator could calculate how far it traveled by keeping track of the rate its propellers were rotating. These “aerial torpedoes” were still fairly rudimentary, though—they could only travel in a straight line, which made them useless for more targeted strikes. “You’d launch them into some area, like a city, where they’re bound to hit something,” Everett says. They were never actually deployed.

Later, operators wielding joysticks could actually steer planes from afar. Essentially, whoever was controlling the plane would use a transmitter to send radio signals to a radio receiver on the plane, which would control a motor that turned the plane’s steering wheel or pressed flight-control buttons. The controller had to fly behind the drone itself in a mothership, because the connection petered out after a few miles.

These first systems were, unsurprisingly, fraught with problems. “Control systems were being developed in a very hurried fashion and they were very new, so they didn’t perform very well at first,” Everett says. Radio interference meant choppy connections, which made the actual planes difficult to direct. Traveling in motherships posed a tactical problem: They were slow, large, and obvious—in other words, easy targets. And operators who rode in the motherships had a hard time actually controlling the drones, since they were observing from afar. Brand new TV sets, installed in the planes in the late 1920s and early 1930s, helped, but they still weren’t perfect. “The picture quality wasn’t that good even when the sets were working correctly,” Everett says.

This was a Boeing 720 and conducted by NASA. NASA had far superior technology during 1984 than the military.

• From your source:

The controller had to fly behind the drone itself in a mothership, because the connection petered out after a few miles.

Traveling in motherships posed a tactical problem: They were slow, large, and obvious—in other words, easy targets. And operators who rode in the motherships had a hard time actually controlling the drones, since they were observing from afar.

NASA's was conducted by remotely controlling a Boeing 720 on the ground with precision, simulating relevant conditions to that of 9/11.

What is your point?

a reply to: M4ngo

That remote control has always been a possibility since it is a decade old tech.
In 1984 or 2001, the technology for remote operating a device through radio-waves had greatly improved in comparison to the WWII-era.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

That remote control has always been a possibility since it is a decade old tech.
In 1984 or 2001, the technology for remote operating a device through radio-waves had greatly improved in comparison to the WWII-era.

I gotcha. Sorry, I took it the wrong way. I never knew about that. Thank you for sharing.

So you have any personal thoughts on it?

a reply to: M4ngo

So far I don't have any reason to consider that the planes were remote-controlled, sorry.
If the planes were empty, where are the passengers who boarded them ?

If the planes were remote-controlled, why did they need to put highjackers in them ? They could have remotly de-presurize the cabine, kill everyone on board and then flight the plane wherever they would have wanted.
Not to mention : why did flight 93 'failed', when the others 'succeeded' ?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

So far I don't have any reason to consider that the planes were remote-controlled, sorry.
If the planes were empty, where are the passengers who boarded them ?

If the planes were remote-controlled, why did they need to put highjackers in them ? They could have remotly de-presurize the cabine, kill everyone on board and then flight the plane wherever they would have wanted.
Not to mention : why did flight 93 'failed', when the others 'succeeded' ?

The passengers were taken somewhere and disposed of. No man would let someone with a box cutter kill innocent lives. Common use common sense.

Can you provide proof that there was anyone on the planes that crashed into the WTCs? Proof as in not a statement but proof as in a medical examiner confirming the bodies.

a reply to: M4ngo

My guess is that you are likely to dismiss whatever proof anybody could submit you ...
Let's put it in another way : Do you have any proofs there weren't any passenger in flight 93 ?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

My guess is that you are likely to dismiss whatever proof anybody could submit you ...
Let's put it in another way : Do you have any proofs there weren't any passenger in flight 93 ?

See above. Neither one of us has any proof. Hope you can accept that.

a reply to: M4ngo

There were people in flight 93 and it crashed in the middle of nowhere ...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

There were people in flight 93 and it crashed in the middle of nowhere ...

Where is the proof of bodies being aboard the planes that crashed into the WTCs and the Pentagon?

Do you have any? I'm not going to run around in circles with you. You either do or don't. I already said I had no proof of either.

a reply to: M4ngo

Why don't you believe there are someone onboard these planes while carefully avoiding any statement about flight 93 ...

Double-standards ?
Do you take the moon landing for granted since you weren't able to double-check by yourself ?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

Why don't you believe there are someone onboard these planes while carefully avoiding any statement about flight 93 ...

Double-standards ?
Do you take the moon landing for granted since you weren't able to double-check by yourself ?

I asked if you could provide proof not provide questions.

a reply to: M4ngo

You need to ask yourself the right questions at some stage.
Why would there be corpses in flight 93 and not in the others ?

After all you can push your 'skepticism' into considering there were no corpse as well in flight 93 ...
The crash scene of flight 93 made it more convenient to retreive human remains than the WTC or pentagon, that doesn't mean there weren't any in theses either. Or you can consider you were 'lied to' about the flight 93 corpses as well ...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: M4ngo

You need to ask yourself the right questions at some stage.
Why would there be corpses in flight 93 and not in the others ?

After all you can push your 'skepticism' into considering there were no corpse as well in flight 93 ...
The crash scene of flight 93 made it more convenient to retreive human remains than the WTC or pentagon, that doesn't mean there weren't any in theses either. Or you can consider you were 'lied to' about the flight 93 corpses as well ...

Or you could use common sense and logical and ask yourself how ONLY the passport of a "terrorist" could have been aboard the same plane that went into the building and exploding in flames, meanwhile debris already falling every, somehow floated down from that inferno and fall nicely for someone to find it?

Passport is made of paper. No bodies from the planes were ever even SEEN anywhere on the scene. A small, highly flammable booklet, however, was.

I can't waste anymore of my time to your running in circles and dodging my questions.

Peace

The lone gunmen, an X-files spinoff aired in the Spring 2001

And nobody ever thought about the IDEA befor3???

a reply to: M4ngo

You want proofs you don't want to believe. I guess you are not convinced by the official statement nor the mourning families tears.
I can list the question you dodged, tell me which one I didn't answer.

The passport is indeed a weird one, could have been planted by the dansing Israelis or, just an incredible case of luck : being onboard the fast-moving plane, the passport is more likely to have be ejected than any static object located inside the tower.
What I'm ready to take for granted, is that high ranked US intel officials may have been aware of the plot and did nothing to prevent it from happening. That doesn't make them complicit in the execution but morally responsible of the consequences.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

That's my take on this as well.

The conspiracy is that they knew it was going to happen. Yet let it happen.

I look at Sibel Edmonds information being retroactively classified as being suspicious.

The remotely controlled boeing crash test was a failure, they missed their target.

Why use remote control when you can guarantee a direct hit with real live zealots?

Lots of those going round. Suicide vests, car and truck bombs, are an industry.

As far as 911 show me one shred of proof it was remotely done, where are the forensics?

Just like 'controlled demo' theories, there aren't any explosive demo train firing components leftover in the rubble either. No shock tube, blasting caps, explosive residue, taggants, not one.

Where is the camera in the cockpit, the levers, motors and servos, the transceiver, etc.?

Bits and pieces would be there leftover in the debris field below the impact sites in the towers.

They aren't.

a reply to: M4ngo

The passengers were taken somewhere and disposed of.

Easy to say that. But how many people would it take to force these people to comply?
Where do you find people to murder hundreds of innocent men , women and children?

No man would let someone with a box cutter kill innocent lives. Common use common sense.

If someone put a knife to your mothers neck you are not going to rush them.

Can you provide proof that there was anyone on the planes that crashed into the WTCs? Proof as in not a statement but proof as in a medical examiner confirming the bodies.

Body parts were recovered and confirmed.

Your ignorance of the real facts of 911 and the real world in general suggest you are not very experienced in life.