Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[Jazzz]

"And we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe, and for example including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control." George Bush, 28th September 2001

He was talking about Robolander - a system to be fitted to all commercial jets to override pilot control in the event of distress. There is no doubt that the technology to fly and land the craft already existed... this plane was successfully landed by remote control over 100 times in 1994!

Using signals from orbiting GPS satellites and the ground-generated pseudolite signals, 110 autopilot-in-the-loop landings of a United Airlines Boeing 737 were completed. The integrity beacons provided consistent accuracies on the order of a few centimeters during each of the autopiloted runway touchdowns.

And here's a link (already posted on another thread) describing twenty-nine different UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) in use by the US military since the 1950s.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Fuck's sake. Not again.

Yes, we all know that it is theoretically possible to fly a plane by remote control. Bit stupid to reference as an example something developed after Sept 11, mind - that doesn't actually give any evidence that such systems existed before Sept 11, rather the opposite if they were specifically designed because of it.

Your theory is that the planes that hit the WTC were under remote control. Correct? Your evidence for this is... er... run that one past me again? The mere fact that it is theoretically possible to do so? Perhaps you could indicate as justification some instances where remote control systems have been used on planes in the past. Perhaps you could indicate how this one - and I don't think it's a simple thing to install - was installed. Perhaps you could provide any convincing reason at all to believe that planes were piloted remotely instead of by people, which is how they are normally guided.

 

[Jazzz]

I've started this thread because there are still people shouting on the other one that RC technology to fly jumbos is a fanciful proposition - and that thread is full to bursting. To assist in that thread I am taking that part of the debate onto this one.

Firstly the plane pictured was landed by remote control in 1994, as I stated in the original post.

This proves that the US military could have easily converted one for use as an unmanned drone years ago.

I'll get on with addressing why I think the planes were piloted by remote control but for now just want to lay to rest the idea that the technology wasn't there.

And don't be so rude. It ill befits a moderator.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Threads like this remind me of Guns & Roses: "Sometimes I feel like i'm beating a dead horse and I don't know why you keep bringing me down..."

 

[fela fan]

Fuck's sake. Not again.

Yes, we all know that it is theoretically possible to fly a plane by remote control. Bit stupid to reference as an example something developed after Sept 11, mind - that doesn't actually give any evidence that such systems existed before Sept 11, rather the opposite if they were specifically designed because of it.

Your theory is that the planes that hit the WTC were under remote control. Correct? Your evidence for this is... er... run that one past me again? The mere fact that it is theoretically possible to do so? Perhaps you could indicate as justification some instances where remote control systems have been used on planes in the past. Perhaps you could indicate how this one - and I don't think it's a simple thing to install - was installed. Perhaps you could provide any convincing reason at all to believe that planes were piloted remotely instead of by people, which is how they are normally guided.

Theoretically?? Well what was that plane doing that DrJ talked about in his opening post. Touching down by theory??

And funny how, if the technology didn't yet exist, that bush was talking about it just 17 days after 9/11. That was quick work!

Fuck, if man could design computer aided craft to get out of the earth's atmosphere and onto the moon four decades ago, you trying to tell me that aircraft couldn't be flown by remote control?

Does it really matter whether the computer that is flying the plane is on the plane or on the ground? Computers are computers. Satellite technology exists to make the location of computers largely irrelevant to their ability to work.

And don't forget that movie that came out before 9/11 happened that had a plane headed towards the WTCs in New York being directed by computers on the ground. Luckily, for those in the movie, the pilots worked out a way just in time to override the computers on the ground, and averted a catastrophe...

 

[fela fan]

Threads like this remind me of Guns & Roses: "Sometimes I feel like i'm beating a dead horse and I don't know why you keep bringing me down..."

Stop listening to Guns and Roses then mate, and instead of opening your ears, open your mind...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Christ almighty. I'm talking to myself again. Forget it. Just forget I ever posted, the pair of you.

Oh, and given that posting is not moderating I'll be as rude as I fucking like. But hey, thanks for the input.

 

[pbman]

Stop listening to Guns and Roses then mate, and instead of opening your ears, open your mind...

But don't open them to far, or everything spills out.

 

[pbman]

Christ almighty. I'm talking to myself again. Forget it. Just forget I ever posted, the pair of you.

Oh, and given that posting is not moderating I'll be as rude as I fucking like. But hey, thanks for the input.

Come on tell us what you really think then.

 

[Loki]

Funnily enough I was thinking about this the other day (not wrt 9/11 but generally ATC taking over the plane in the event of pilot death/hijack). It's all perfectly feasible, in fact relatively straightforward considering we can land robots on a planet billions of miles away.

But that kind of tech has only been implemented in military drones so far, certainly not the commercial sector.

 

[Jazzz]

Christ almighty. I'm talking to myself again. Forget it. Just forget I ever posted, the pair of you.

Oh, and given that posting is not moderating I'll be as rude as I fucking like. But hey, thanks for the input.

ok, ignore the "it ill befits a moderator" bit. I'll just say - don't be so fucking rude. Because if you have read the other thread, you'll find editor and diamond shouting loudly at CaroleK and myself that flying a jumbo by remote control is a pie-in-the-sky idea unsupported by evidence despite the fact that the US military has had a variety of UAVs in use dating back to the 1950s and planned to use one for 'Operation Northwoods' - and I linked to the very page of the document in which it was outlined.

So that's why this thread is needed. Perhaps you have always recognised that such remote control is a piece of piss for a trillion dollar military - and after all, commercial jets can fly themselves on autopilot save take-off and landings - but neither you nor I are responsible for the extremely repetitive arguments put forth by prolific posters on these threads such as editor and one has to address them here to give the other threads a hope of progressing.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Stop listening to Guns and Roses then mate, and instead of opening your ears, open your mind...

My mind and eyes are open; that's why I dont waste my time with this conspiracy bullshit.

 

[WouldBe]

And funny how, if the technology didn't yet exist, that bush was talking about it just 17 days after 9/11. That was quick work!

In the first few lines of the first link DrJ gave, Robolander is a concept conceived on 9/12 i.e. the day after 9/11 and 16 days before the Bush speech.

As I said months ago on the other thread 'Yes it is possible'. That doesnt mean to say it was in use on 9/11.

 

[montevideo]

But don't open them to far, or everything spills out.

or youmay remeber how to fucking spell correctly!!!

 

[montevideo]

My mind and eyes are open; that's why I dont waste my time with this conspiracy bullshit.

then don't. I'm sure your hormones are better displaced elsewhere. Guns & fucking roses. Jesus,teen angst ain't what it used to be...

 

[editor]

Strange how it's impossible to find a single picture of this fabulous technology anywhere on the web, isn't it?

Perhaps the good DrJ could provide some illustrations of this near-invisible technology that amazingly manages to conceal itself completely from the gaze of maintenance staff, ground-crew, passengers and pilots and offer some insights as to how it might have been implemented?

And then - to get this back on to your bonkers theory - we could talk about the amazing team of USG Mike Yarwoods and why you think you know better than those who spoke to their loved ones for the last time on that doomed flight...

 

[Jazzz]

As ever, editor is too weak a poster to admit that he may have been completely wrong in incessantly ridiculing the idea that such remote control technology could exist, even when it is proved beyond any doubt on this thread. A bit of humble pie wouldn't go amiss, but one doesn't get that from editor.

And of course he hasn't been reading my posts over the last two years as he would know full well my oft-stated belief that the planes which struck the WTC and the Pentagon were not the passenger-laden ones that took off, but unmanned remotely controlled drones.

This is the only way they could do it. And it's why black boxes went missing, transponders turned off, no wreckage identifiable in the Pentagon, nice hollywood explosions (the drones had added missiles) so you have big fires that you can erroneously credit your collapses (controlled demolitions) with.

Of course - to alter editor's post just slightly - one might ask the FBI to provide illustrations of these 19 invisible hijackers that managed to get through check-in unphotographed and unchallenged...

 

[WouldBe]

Using signals from orbiting GPS satellites and the ground-generated pseudolite signals, 110 autopilot-in-the-loop landings of a United Airlines Boeing 737 were completed. The integrity beacons provided consistent accuracies on the order of a few centimeters during each of the autopiloted runway touchdowns.

Bold emphesis added by me.

These 110 landings were autopilot landings NOT remote controlled landings.

Several commercial aircraft have the ability to fly from standstill through take-off to landing at destination completely by autopilot BUT so far as I know there is no ability to connect a remote control system into the autopilot. Also aircraft that are fitted with this level of technology have anti-collision radar fitted which would have easilly detected the WTC.

 

[montevideo]

the problem i have is this: on 10th sept 2001 all you know it all fuckers would quite happily trot out your rational explanations just how & why it would be near impossible for 2 commerical jet liners to be flown into 2 of the biggest buildings in the world.

We know what we choose to believe.

 

[editor]

the problem i have is this: on 8th sept 2001 all you know it all fuckers would quite happily trot out your rational explanations just how & why it would be near impossible for 2 commerical jet liners to be flown into 2 of the biggest buildings in the world.

I don't suppose you have the slightest, teensiest weensiest shred of evidence to support that wild and reckless piece of daft supposition have you?

No. Thought not.

 

[editor]

These 110 landings were autopilot landings NOT remote controlled landings.

Several commercial aircraft have the ability to fly from standstill through take-off to landing at destination completely by autopilot BUT so far as I know there is no ability to connect a remote control system into the autopilot. Also aircraft that are fitted with this level of technology have anti-collision radar fitted which would have easilly detected the WTC.

Oh dear. DrJ's got it wrong again. There was no 'remote control' landings.

I trust DrJ will be along shortly to apologise for his embarrassing, king size gaffe.

 

[montevideo]

I don't suppose you have the slightest, teensiest weensiest shred of evidence to support that wild and reckless piece of daft supposition have you?

No. Thought not.

the evidence of my opinion would be the opinion.

The point being, if dr jazzz was typing away on the 10th sept 2001 saying that the possibility of commerical jet liners flying into the wtc was a real one what, do you imagine, your response would have been?

 

[editor]

As ever, editor is too weak a poster to admit that he may have been completely wrong in incessantly ridiculing the idea that such remote control technology could exist, even when it is proved beyond any doubt on this thread. A bit of humble pie wouldn't go amiss, but one doesn't get that from editor.

Oh dear, DrJ. The planes weren't flown by remote control. You've got it wrong. Completely wrong.

So it's the whole humble pie, the oven, the delivery van and the baking factory for you!

 

[editor]

The point being, if dr jazzz was typing away on the 10th sept 2001 saying that the possibility of commerical jet liners flying into the wtc was a real one what, do you imagine, your response would have been?

I can't go back in time, but I can't think of any reason why I would think that flying a large aircraft into a ruddy huge building would be technically "near impossible" to achieve.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

then don't. I'm sure your hormones are better displaced elsewhere. Guns & fucking roses. Jesus,teen angst ain't what it used to be...

Eh? I'm 28! Hormones indeed!

 

[editor]

We know what we choose to believe.

How many people/personalities have you got at the keyboard there, then?

 

[fela fan]

I don't suppose you have the slightest, teensiest weensiest shred of evidence to support that wild and reckless piece of daft supposition have you?

No. Thought not.

You're getting carried away with your adjectives again...

And how come you're asking for evidence of a poster's opinion?? You clearly have evidence on the brain when it comes to this topic.

I think one of the aspects of people's reactions to the events was the very fact that huge jet planes were flying low in New York and smashing into such a relatively small target.

So it's a good point from montevideo, that just coz something's hard to believe, don't meant it ain't so.

 

[fela fan]

And of course he hasn't been reading my posts over the last two years as he would know full well my oft-stated belief that the planes which struck the WTC and the Pentagon were not the passenger-laden ones that took off, but unmanned remotely controlled drones.

This is the only way they could do it. And it's why black boxes went missing, transponders turned off, no wreckage identifiable in the Pentagon, nice hollywood explosions (the drones had added missiles) so you have big fires that you can erroneously credit your collapses (controlled demolitions) with.

Interesting, and it would explain a lot towards how things did happen that day.

But mate, it leaves me asking what happened to the passenger planes that took off? Where did they go? And what about the deaths of those on board?

 

[editor]

So it's a good point from montevideo, that just coz something's hard to believe, don't meant it ain't so.

Oh yes. What a truly great and insightful point it was.

He manufactures a wildly speculative opinion about what "know it all fuckers" might have thought about an event in the past and you applaud it.

Seeing as you think it was such a good point and clearly enjoy his brand of clueless conjecture, perhaps you might like to tell me why I - or anyone else for that matter - might have thought that crashing a large plane into an even larger building was "near impossible"?

 

[editor]

Interesting, and it would explain a lot towards how things did happen that day.

Hold on. aren't you reading what's been said?

DrJazzz's "remote controlled passenger planes" which had "landed over 100 times" in 1994 didn't exist.

They weren't remote controlled. They were on autopilot. Totally different.

He got it completely wrong and made an absolute arse of himself in the process after delivering a pompous lecture to me.

I do hope he's not "too weak" to admit to his catastrophic blunder.