Empty Plane Theory

Its not politically correct or socially acceptable to go against the governments war machine...

reply to post by andersensrm


?

Let me ask you this.......why did you open this thread?

I believe you have me mistaken with someone else:

Opening Post (OP) by the Original Poster (OP), revolutionphase1

Clearer, now?

The first radio controlled aircraft was made in 1913...

Remote controlled B-17's were used for bunker busting along the Atlantic Wall in 1944...

NASA control crashed a Boeing 720 into a target in the 1970s...Boeing 720 crash test > www.youtube.com...

There is no reason at all why the same thing could not be done in a modern aircraft and we have advanced computers to help us now...

reply to post by ProudBird


This is my thread, of course ive read all your posts! I like the debate we have constructed. However, you stated previously, that these 4 jets would be too much work, and VERY expensive. I agree. But if this event was planned WAY in advance, and THEY print the currency = infinite resources.
They build cars/planes all the time, just to crash them. Why not spend 10 + years constructing 4 Boeings. Seems like they had fun making an RC jet.
I know Area-51 is old-news, but a place similar to that is where i imagine this would be done.

Originally posted by blocula
The first radio controlled aircraft was made in 1913...

Remote controlled B-17's were used for bunker busting along the Atlantic Wall in 1944...

NASA control crashed a Boeing 720 into a target in the 1970s...Boeing 720 crash test >

There is no reason at all why the same thing could not be done in a modern aircraft and we have advanced computers to help us now...

edit on 3-2-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

NICE find

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by andersensrm

 

?

Let me ask you this.......why did you open this thread?

I believe you have me mistaken with someone else:

Opening Post (OP) by the Original Poster (OP), revolutionphase1

Clearer, now?

I meant why did you click on it, open it up and post on it. Clearer now?

I am pointing it out, because even you have to admit the possibility is there, and as long as it is there, nobody can deny it, even though you can't prove it.

reply to post by andersensrm


Oh, I understand your question better now, thank you.

The reason I opened this thread, and felt compelled to respond, was to dispel a lot of misconceptions that seem to linger on these topics, for some reason.

While some people may consider speculation that "goes outside the box" as constructive, that sort of discussion tends to distort and cloud the facts, and the reality. There are many people on this planet who happen to have a fair knowledge and experience level of very specific disciplines, and are able to share (best they can) that expertise.

AboveTopSecret.com ('ATS') is a very prominent online presence --- and will continue to be for long time to come. Nature of the Internet is still evolving, in some respects.....I think some of us forget at times, just how "new" it is, in relation to other forms of 'media'.

There is a sort of "instantaneity" to the Internet that is fast becoming the accepted "norm" more and more. Even that form of the original word, instantaneous, although shown as valid in the link I provided, is not yet part of my SpellCheck lexicon using Google Chrome, as I am right now. I find that fascinating....and very much a sign of my point.....

I hope this explains a bit of my motivation, here.....

...I digressed, and lost focus. So, to clarify:

I saw a claim that I knew very well to be incredibly incorrect, based on my life experience and extensive knowledge. Finding a way to share just a fraction of what I know, to counter-act some very mistaken beliefs, is something that is compelling to me.

Knowing the nature of the Internet, and especially what is being recorded for posterity here on this website, I knew that since nothing ever seems to ever disappear from the 'Web, it was important to add to the record, for future reference......

reply to post by ProudBird


Ah yes makes sense now.


I can see how one would come to the conclusion that "thinking outside the box" can lead to misleading information. But when the facts and information your given is misleading and distorted to begin with, you may have to "think outside the box" to find any real answers. Possibilities have to be disproved before they can be denied.

reply to post by revolutionphase1


I am well aware of the NASA/Dryden Research joint effort from the early 1980s that involved that particular event, with the B-720 crash test.

I am very familiar with the specifics, as well. Perhaps a bit of background will dispel the presumption (of those less informed) of the technical hurdles faced, and the many problems that led to the actual (and final) test flight to be a partial failure.


The Boeing 720 (a variation of the older B-707 basic airframe) was very prone to an aerodynamic phenomenon known as Dutch Roll.

A snippet:

Dutch roll: A Dutch Roll is a combination of rolling and yawing (coupled lateral/directional) oscillations that normally occurs when the dihedral effects of an aircraft are more powerful than the directional stability. Usually dynamically stable but objectionable in an airplane because of the oscillatory nature. The damping of the oscillatory mode may be weak or strong depending on the properties of the particular aircraft.

Many discount Wikipedia as a source, so I offer it as the second choice:
Wiki Source to add to the one above


The B-707/720, due to its angle of wing sweep-back, was prone to Dutch Roll tendencies....the mass of the engines outboard closer to the wingtips exacerbated this. More modern designs have alleviated the problem, as more was learned over the decades. Better Yaw Damper automation also helps. Along with less severe angles of sweep-back. Aerodynamic design is always about compromise, and sometimes improved technology helps.

So, the NASA/Dryden crash test (designed to see if a fuel "anti-misting" additive would work as predicted) didn't go as planned, due to a slight Dutch Roll onset that the remote pilot was unable to account for....another term for this is 'PIO', or "Pilot Induced Oscillation"...although 'PIO' is normally associated with excessive use of the elevators, in the pitch axis....

Another PIO reference link, again Wiki


Now, the actual preparations for that ONE-time crash test?

Dryden Flight Research Center

Comprehensive Wiki Article

Read the Full PDF from 1985, after the test

AND, here is the full NASA "Summary Report"

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Planning for the Full Scale Transport Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) began in July 1980. The aircraft experiments and systems integrations began in December 1983. The first full dress rehearsal took place on February 29, 1984, and the CID aircraft first flew on March 7, 1984.

Please...take note ^ ^ ^ of those time frames.


Such an accomplishment! And, never repeated. This was done (in the early 1980s) with an airframe well-known and well documented. There are ample ways to ascertain that there are NO "missing" Boeing 757s nor 767s that have ever been built, except for all that have been accounted for as "written off" due to severe damage or accidents.

This is an undeniable record.

reply to post by ProudBird
Nasa and the military most certainly doesnt tell the public everything about the types of technology they have and are using.So for somone to say "and they never tried crashing a remote controlled jet again" is saying or believing something they know next to nothing about.The military must be at least 10 - 20 years ahead of what technology is available to the public at any given time,a public who thinks its special when it gets to consume some of the worn out technology toys that the military sells to big businesses when they invent something secret and new...

If "evil terrorists" crashed those planes on 911 then why has there not been one single further major terrorist attack in the usa in over 10 years? and even if there was "one or two" so what,i'd expect dozens after what we did to them over there...

Remote controlled B-17's were used for bunker busting along the Atlantic Wall in 1944...

"Think about it"...They were able to do that back in the 1940's...

The 1970's nasa jet crash was over 30 years ago and ever since then we have invented more and more advanced computers that could easily fly a 747 from the ground.Its not a question of "if" a 747 type plane could be remotely flown,of course they can be,to think they could'nt would be very naive...

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by backwherewestarted

 

Theres no reason to talk to the op that way,none at all,anythings possible and sometimes the truth is too horible to face and so denial becomes the accepted norm,are you trying to derail his thread?

The thousands of innocent american dead at pearl harbor were the governments sacrificial lambs of their generation and the thousands of innocent people killed in the twin towers were the governments sacrificial lambs of ours...imo...

edit on 3-2-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Let me get this straight, you ask if I am trying to derail the thread because I have posted that I personally know people who were on the plane, that I actually saw two people board one of the planes and he is implying that I am a liar, he is spinning and obfuscating and now, after I pointed out that he is calling me a liar he has decided to ignore me and move on. I think you need to open your eyes and see the reality of what is going on here. You are supporting a closed minded person who can't handle people who say things that don't support his agenda.

The only derailing I see is him erailing people presenting facts that don't fit his agenda and people lie you twisting things people say in order to derail them and support his thread that is now in the appropriate forum.

reply to post by backwherewestarted
I meant using abrasive language towards the op as a way to get this thread threatened or closed...

You claim to have known people on those planes and saw two get onboard them,then theres nothing i can say to argue that,i wasnt there...

But,once that person or persons got onto the plane and it took off,you and i do not know what really happened to them,or where that plane really went...

Tptb "could have" landed the plane,or had a pilot in on the plan land that plane you saw that person get on somewhere else altogether and then tptb "could have" killed all the people on board and everyone would "think" that the plane that crashed into the tower was the same one that took off from the airport...

Key word here is think,as long as the majority of people think tptb's official story is thee truth,thats all tptb care about...

Nothing will stand in the way of the governments war machine and if eliminating a couple hundred people in passenger planes is something that tptb needed to do,they would do it in a second...

Theres also a chance and a very real possibility that people got on board planes that were,uknown to them,being flown remotely,or about to be taken over and crashed remotely...

And remember that during the 20th century alone over 200 million people were killed by government orchestrated wars and genocides,so killing lots of innocent people is something that the governments of the world are really good at and could care less doing so as long as their military agendas are accomplished...

Remote Controlled Boeing Passenger Jets > forum.prisonplanet.com...

Anything to do with 9/11 FAKERY, ATS tosses in the
bloody hoax bin, when the TRUTH of the matter is that
the whole days events are chock full of fakery, from plane crashes to
witness testimony to victims to video and photographic 'recordings'.
Very telling, as usual.

Thousands of pages proving complete 9/11 fakery

I thought the plane's like flight 175 weren't scheduled to leave the ground on that day?

And the footage shows it was a military jet (can see the logo in some footage) -- & different to a commercial airliner...

Maybe the story of the one that passengers took the plane down was like a set-up to make the whole thing seem more realistic .... There was never intention for it to make it to its destination...

reply to post by Raguel

I thought the plane's like flight 175 weren't scheduled to leave the ground on that day?

This is not correct ^ ^ ^.

And the footage shows it was a military jet (can see the logo in some footage) -- & different to a commercial airliner...

This ^ ^ ^ is also incorrect.

reply to post by Raguel


(double post deleted)

reply to post by backwherewestarted


Rude, but fine i wont ignore you. Answer me this:
Lets say the planes WERENT empty, and they were indeed packed full of passengers. Why were the humans in flight 93, the only brave enough citizens to take it down? The hundreds of people in the other planes...were too scared? Of box cutters? (or w.e the official report says they had)
Its complete b.s. We are human beings and when faced with a life or death situation, amongst hundreds of people, no stupid Taliban box cutter guy is going to win. The chances are SUPER slim, and the goverment wouldnt risk that in a conspiracy of this size.
(also, if the terrorists boarded the plane like regular people, where are the airport surviellence videos? I'm sure they had to go through security, wait for their plane etc. There would deffinitly be footage of them ALL.)

reply to post by revolutionphase1


The ATS member you replied to is not "me"....but I feel compelled to help answer in his/her absence:

[snip].... Answer me this:
Lets say the planes WERENT empty, and they were indeed packed full of passengers. Why were the humans in flight 93, the only brave enough citizens to take it down?

Because United 93 had an extensive ground delay, from gate departure, to actual take-off time.

I am WELL familiar with the operations at Newark Airport....as I was based there for many, many years. And, operated in and out....while I commuted, on my time off, to where I actually lived. (MANY airline crew commute as a matter of life, to their "base"....while living elsewhere. JUST ASK!!)

This delay in the take-off was NOT anticipated by the planners (the Arab hijackers).

The hundreds of people in the other planes...were too scared? Of box cutters?

Oh, dear.....Each hijacked airplane had one primary pilot, and one secondary. The others in the team were "grunts" who used intimidation and fear to keep the passengers (and cabin crew) in check.

These jack-holes chose, ON PURPOSE after much planning, flights that were usually not very full, in terms of passenger capacity.

It is very, very easy to "fake a bomb" or just threaten the hostages......people will NOT "rise up" against such a threat. It is a psychological fact.

(also, if the terrorists boarded the plane like regular people, where are the airport surviellence videos?

THOSE are all over the Internet!!! care to do a search??

reply to post by ProudBird

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by revolutionphase1

 

It is very, very easy to "fake a bomb" or just threaten the hostages......people will NOT "rise up" against such a threat. It is a psychological fact.

Not on flight 93 supposedly. They took that sucker down quick & "saved the white house". If you want to get into psychological "facts", the human brain is an amazing thing. There is no telling what we could accomplish if our energy was "one" in its intent. And in this case, these people either 1. waited to die, or 2. did something about it.

Its just flat out not fair to say a certain group of humans was "stronger" than the others. Not only does the false story benifit the elites, it destorys the humans confidence subliminally. Thus, i believe no passengers were ever on board.

(also, if the terrorists boarded the plane like regular people, where are the airport surviellence videos?

THOSE are all over the Internet!!! care to do a search??

It would definitly help your argument if you post this footage. I searched and found nothing.

Originally posted by revolutionphase1
reply to post by ProudBird

 

It would definitly help your argument if you post this footage. I searched and found nothing.

Trying to reply to all of the assertions.....

Not on flight 93 supposedly. They took that sucker down quick & "saved the white house".

Once again.....UAL 93 was VERY delayed from gate to actual take-off...this was NOT anticipated by those who planned this.

This delay, well documented, led to the passengers on-board UAL 93 (via the AirFones installed in the seat-backs...it only took ONE person to use his or her credit card to make a call...and learn of the events in New York...and then put TWO and TWO together!!!).

ONCE the severity of the situation was so obvious to those on UAL 93....that they were NOT simply the victims of a "normal" hijacking scenario....they KNEW that they could at least attempt to take matters into their own hands.

It is so clear to those of us in the airline industry.....it is difficult to explain to laypersons.


LOOK....here is MY take on it.....IF United 93 had happened differently, and IF the passengers had managed to take out BOTH of the hijackers in the cockpit......THEN UAL 93 would have been saved.

Because, at that point (all "bad guys" vanquished)....there would have been an opportunity to get that airplane down safely.

the Boeing 757 (and 767, since they are considered the "same" by aviation authorities) is fully capable of "auto-land".....when properly programmed. It requires specific sequences of inputs to the "AutoFlight" system....but, it CAN be done, by a Human who is coached, while in the cockpit.

Anyone familiar with the B757/767 could talk a person through the process...as long as the person on the airplane could first learn how to use the radio, and know how to key a mic, and then un-key the mic to hear the reply.

This is basic "Walkie-Talkie" stuff....I think most people know this (??)