Complete Remote Airliner Control Before 9-11

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Where did you hear that? And even if it's true, it proves nothing by itself.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by DangerDeath

 

How about those Israeli crew with "cameras" who were in position to record the event, and happily jumping around when it occurred?

How about the fact that those Israelis WERENT there when the event started?

They were there and were very happy.
I am not saying they did the laser thing, just making a point that some were "informed" in advance.
And, as I remember the face of GW Bush, when he was informed about what had just occurred, he was apparently the one who was not informed in advance.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


From the June 21, 2002 edition of 20/20....

On the morning of September 11th, Maria--who asked us not to use her last name--was home preparing for her day, when she got a call from a friend who lived upstairs in the same New Jersey high-rise

She was sitting when she heard a noise, at the same time she felt like it--it shook--like the building shook, she said. She called me immediately. She said, 'You know, there's--there's something wrong, look at your window by the twin towers.' So I grab my binoculars and I could see the towers from my window

Maria: And this is where I, you know, I'm looking. I saw the smoke from the top, just from the top of the towers.

MILLER: (VO) After watching for a little while, something caught Maria's at-tention in the parking lot below her window.

MARIA: Like a few minutes must have gone on, and all of a sudden down there I see this van park. And I see three guys on top of the van, and I'm trying, you know, to look at the building but what caught my attention, they seemed to be taking a movie.

In other words, according to the witness who called the police to report these guys and their behavior, at least the first tower had been hit BEFORE they showed up. So much for them being there expecting the attack.....



[edit on 8-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by Studenofhistory


The 2.3 trillion mentioned by Donald Rumsfeld that is so commonly referred to by conspiracy theorists was public knowledge long before Sept 11, 2001.

"That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in Departmentlevel
accounting interest, $2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain
adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled, or
were made to force buyer and seller data to agree."

Donald Rumsfeld confirmation hearings, January 11,2001

911myths.com...

Further research showed that this dated back to fiscal year 1999.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Wow the OP is breathtaking. I bet you are right. They used this to fly the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. It would be easy, just set the plane up to depressurize at a certain point in the flight, thus knocking out the crew and passengers and then take remote control of the flight. How could we ever prove this?

It could even be true that Paine Stewarts flight depressurising and killing all on board before it crash landed was just a test run. I was always suspicious of that.

reply to post by grapesofraft


I don't know that we can. But SOMETHING has got to make more sense than the Official Story.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I whole-heartedly agree with you that what they have given as evidence for 911 has to be made up. How are we suppose to believe that a group of Muslims had the ability to take over 4 planes with only box cutters. Certainly those passengers would have all fought back before they let themselves be flown to their death.

Originally posted by grapesofraft
I whole-heartedly agree with you that what they have given as evidence for 911 has to be made up. How are we suppose to believe that a group of Muslims had the ability to take over 4 planes with only box cutters. Certainly those passengers would have all fought back before they let themselves be flown to their death.

Actually they also had knives, and lets please remember that hijackings have occured many times before, usually forcing the plane to land for a ransom. Regardless, once the passengers on flight 93 were aware of their fate, they did fight back and forced the hijackers to crash the plane.

reply to post by exponent


Well what you say about flight 93 is true but how do you explain the passengers in the other 3 planes not fighting back in order to save themselves. I doubt they were that full of cowardice.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Just because she didn't notice the van before the first tower was hit, doesn't mean they weren't there. Do you really believe that they were just driving along and suddenly noticed the towers on fire and decided to stop, climb on the van's roof and high five each other? They were quoted on Israeli tv as saying that they were there to document the attack which can only mean they knew about it in advance.

reply to post by grapesofraft


grapes, allow me to disabuse you of any misconceptions regarding Payne Stewart's accident.

The investigation was quite conclusive. A poor pre-flight by the crew.

On that older model Learjet the supplemental oxygen has a tank, with on/off valve. It was customary to close the valve, when the airplane was parked, to prevent O2 leakage, and the subsequent cost and delay involved in re-filling. The valve was left closed. Also, the pilots did not pre-flight their masks. THAT is an immediate clue, since they would have no flow.

For some reason, the airplane depressurized (It was not a new airplane). Of course, pilots donned their masks, but soon lost consciousness, since they were unaware that there was no O2 flowing...and, BTW, the tank valve is outside of the cockpit.

The airplane continued, on AutoPilot, in the last mode programmed....Altitude Hold, and Heading....until the airplane ran out of fuel.

Tragic, but no foul play.

Oh, and on a modern passenger jet? CANNOT be depressurized by remote control, and pilots pre-flight very thoroughly.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well thanks for the info. I have always wondered about that. Like maybe Tiger Woods is part of the NWO and he wanted Paine out of the way. I do not know. I guess that is kind of ridiculous on my part. Thanks for clearing it up.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


I guess you missed the part where she said she saw the van park?

Back on topic (my Lord I find myself saying that in this forum more than any other), here is a link from NASA itself showing they had remote control as far back as 1984.

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

The Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) was a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test a survivable aircraft impact using a remotely piloted Boeing 720 aircraft.

The edited "CID movie montage" runs 29 seconds and views the CID impact from four different positions on the ground.

And here is the direct link to the demonstration video itself:

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Hurry hurry, wouldn't wanna miss it if they pull it down.

Again, credit to Phil Jayhan at letsrollforums.com... for the information pointer.

Would you guys say it's safe to say that we have established evidence pretty solid that remote control was available on 9/11? I don't see any debunkers arguing against....

reply to post by TrueAmerican



Yes, yes, yes, we know all about that. It was a one-off event.

Take a look, why don't you, into the amount of study and preparation that went into it...and pay particular attention to how difficult it was to 'fly' it...the guy missed his target!!!!

Hmmm.....ya know, if this remote control business was so 'easy', then we'd be seeing a heck of a lot more remotely driven trucks, loaded with bombs. Hey, why not?? Easier than convincing someone to be a martyr...

(Well, really...there's no shortage of willing suicide bombers, they are indoctrinated from a young age. SO, that's probably why you don't see the remote controlled trucks. Stupid religious fanatics are cheaper).

The thing about remote control (and, FWIW, I've been in the hobby since I was a teenager) is you are outside of the vehicle you are controlling. You have to have it in sight...and depth perception and orientation reference are problems -- that, sure, are overcome with practice and experience.

Modern UAV technology is a joy to behold....and they put the pilot in the vehicle 'virtually', so at least, from his perspective, it does away with some of the orientation difficulties. However, these are specifically designed machines, for this task (There are thousands deployed right now, in the Middle East...and they can be controlled from anywhere in the World).

The fantasy of B767s being fitted with everything needed to convert them to some form of remote control (without anyone noticing) is rubbish.

EDIT:

Here it is, from YouTube. No need to hurry, hurry!
AND, this one has narration!


This is 25-year old news...though, someone not in the industry never having heard of it before, would seem new to them, I suppose.





[edit on 6/17/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well maybe we should get a little closer to 9/11 home then.

letsrollforums.com...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I tried to be brief.

Here's my analysis of this "theory":

Your link had an article suggesting a GUI, interfaced and used somehow by another person, could take control of a modern jetliner?? To that, again -- rubbish.

How was that 'scenario' supposed to play out, exactly? Are we to imagine that the airplanes were "Taken over", and the poor pilots were just along for the ride, and could do nothing?? Rubbish.

Or...as in the NASA/FAA experiment, the airplane(s) were previously outfitted....with all of the servos, electronics, cameras (for the pilot on the ground to see where he was going)....ALL of that done, to at least two airplanes, but no one involved has said anything??

Then, somehow, the two (at least two) airplanes taxied and took off from Boston, communicating with ATC the entire time, but were empty?

Which scenario is being proposed? Because, they are both ludicrous.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ahh, perhaps you may have missed this post by SPreston:

Explains it rather nicely-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plane swap.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Explains it rather nicely-

Maybe to non-pilots.

Besides, Preston was going on about AAL77, not the two airplanes that crashed into the WTC!!

Oh, and you should understand the RADAR data block information. Firstly, it only updates every six to eight seconds (sometimes longer, depending on the software). The 'speed' information in the data block is groundspeed. Not airspeed. The little animation he made is also disingenuous.

Again, grasping to the extreme...every time a 'theory' is shown to have holes in it, someone comes up with something new. Really, he could have a new career as a Hollywood screen writer. Such as in that awful "Die Hard" sequel, where terrorists take over an airport!! Dreadfully inaccurate.

Here is what the real flighttracker looks like:



I selected Cleveland, Ohio randomly. YOU can select any city in the US and Canada.

Well, it won't show the 'big picture', you'll have to do that yourself. I'll help>

Type in the ICAO airport identifier, click 'view activity', then click on the small image to make it big.

[edit on 6/17/0909 by weedwhacker]