Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[fela fan]

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"?

You've missed his point. It wasn't about specific people, nor about know it all fuckers, nor about specific incidents.

It was to point out that just coz something might be hard to believe, it doesn't mean that that is evidence for it not being able to happen.

 

[fela fan]

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.

He hasn't been back to reply yet, so i think you should wait a bit longer before concluding what kind of person he is.

Autopilot means the plane is being flown by computer. Remote control means that the computer is being operated from elsewhere.

This is of course exactly how we got unmanned missions to Mars. Just getting to a big building in New York, considering the slight difference in distances, would therefore seem a piece of cake.

As you well know, i can operate your computer for you all the way here in thailand if i and you have the appropriate technology.

I think remoted controlled planes seem a relatively easy touch in our modern world of technology. I'd like to see more proof of how it works and who's been using it, but it seems very acceptable to me that such a thing exists.

 

[G. Fieendish]

The "Robolander" that Dr.Jazz is talking about is basically "Vapourware" !
I think, that Rockwell proposed this as a concept, last year.
It is NOT the same as Category 3 ILS "Autoland", as Dr.Jazz'es is proclaiming, as virtually all modern airliners have this facility as part of their existing autopilots.
The "Robolander" is a collision avoidance "fix" by which if a aircraft is potentially nearing a tall building,either delibrately or not, the autopilot will "override" the pilot & execute a 3G turn away from said building, avoiding a collision. The complete system would incorporate a GPS "addon", and a 3D database of all major cities, installed into the autopilot as part of a software upgrade.
Naturally, airline pilots are furious about this as it removes control of the aircraft from them, & with other security devices installed (reinforced cockpit doors, CCTV etc), they believe it's irrelvalent....
Yours,Grimley

 

[Passepartout]

I'm sorry, but this is so moronic. For the planes to be remotely piloted, the following would have to happen:

1. The passengers, and thus their bereaved families would have to be fake. Otherwise, wouldn't they have noticed a lack of crew?

2. The flight attendants, and thus their bereaved families, would have to be fake. Otherwise, wouldn't *they* have noticed a lack of crew even if the passengers didn't? Wouldn't that concern them?

It really is like Santa Claus (and Jesus). You're hoping that if you believe something strongly enough, it will make it true.

 

[gnoriac]

Maybe I've missed the whole argument, but I can't follow how come a remote-controlled aircraft (no proven technology) is supposedly more feasible than a terrorist with some pilot training.

 

[pinkmonkey]

Especially a terrorist who is comfortable with the idea of dying for their cause..........and theres a lot of those about.

So what

 

[Loki]

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.

er, it was one of the world's biggest buildings, visible from miles away.

 

[fela fan]

er, it was one of the world's biggest buildings, visible from miles away.

It's still a relatively small target. And my memory of the footage was of a plane coming in virtually horizontal, and at the end of a banking manouevre. At only about 80 floors up that's not very high. So i had visions of this plane flying over New York just above building tops and in effect very very close to the ground for a plane flying in amongst a city connurbation.

 

[admirablenelson]

Utter Utter Crap

I cannot believe that Dr J and the like are still recycling these utterly pointless and empty ideas.

You cannot fly large passenger jets by remote control.

Passengers and crew died on those aircraft and your denial of that is deeply disrespectful of their deaths.

The terrorists methods are well understood. They followed the Hudson River south and steered into the biggest thing on the skyline, the WTC.

All this claptrap obscures the situation we find ourselves in.

In the west we are all now at risk because of the confrontation between the poor policies of our governments in the Middle East and the zealotry of a Muslim fundamentalist minority.

We need to be pressing governments to adopt fresh approaches to peace in the Middle East and building bridges with the decent majority of Muslims.

Just bin this crap, it's getting us nowhere.

 

[Diamond]

fela fan - mate you've just contradicted yourself. On one post you argue that seeing as the mars lander could land on a specific spot on mars (which coincidentally is a fallacy, beagle obviously fucked up didn't it? And if I remember correctly the first mars lander landed in completely the wrong place) it would be very easy for a plane to be remotely piloted towards, and by extension, into a large big building in New York.

Then you argue that the hijackers couldn't have done it because it's too small to target (these are two buildings that are 1/2 a km in width shaped like an oblong and over 1000 feet high, compromising of well over 100 floors).

So let me get this right, on one hand you have highly trained CIA men flying a plane easily by remote control into a large building, but on the other hand you have committed terrorists who had been training on simulators and attending flight school for months not being able to fly this plane into the same building, except that for this argument it suddenly reduces in size to become a small target.

What's it gonna be?

 

[Jangla]

Yes, the technology exists.
Yes, it would take up half the aircraft with the technology required.
No, you couldn't secrete it covertly in a commercial airliner.
End of.

 

[fela fan]

fela fan - mate you've just contradicted yourself. On one post you argue that seeing as the mars lander could land on a specific spot on mars (which coincidentally is a fallacy, beagle obviously fucked up didn't it? And if I remember correctly the first mars lander landed in completely the wrong place) it would be very easy for a plane to be remotely piloted towards, and by extension, into a large big building in New York.

Then you argue that the hijackers couldn't have done it because it's too small to target (these are two buildings that are 1/2 a km in width shaped like an oblong and over 1000 feet high, compromising of well over 100 floors).

So let me get this right, on one hand you have highly trained CIA men flying a plane easily by remote control into a large building, but on the other hand you have committed terrorists who had been training on simulators and attending flight school for months not being able to fly this plane into the same building, except that for this argument it suddenly reduces in size to become a small target.

What's it gonna be?

I'm sure i contradict myself from time to time, but i don't think i have here.

I argued that computers on the ground could get a craft to land on mars. Teh distance to mars makes the end destination relatively small, but that's splitting hairs.

If those WTC planes were remote controlled, that i take to understand that computers on the ground overrode the plane's computers. And by typing in the exact coordinates of the buildings, just let the computer do the work. Accuracy is assured, just as the plane's autopilot system is.

But those planes if they were flown by pilots employed by OBL were being flown manually, not on autopilot. At least that is the only credible way i can see that happening.

I don't claim the planes to have been remote controlled, i asked questions earlier due to my doubts. But it seems plausible to me that normal pilots were on the planes who then found that they couldn't operate the computers, coz something was overriding them.

 

[Bonfirelight]

conspiracy fans.
So what happened to the 'real' planes?
if the planes that crashed were some remote control missiles or whatever, then you're theory goes that the original planes were spirited away.
Then what happened to the crew and the passengers next?

 

[fela fan]

Just bin this crap, it's getting us nowhere.

Do you normally spend your time on crap?

 

[WouldBe]

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?

My responce would be it is quite feasable. After all this sort of thing has been happening for decades. Wasn't it back in the 1950's that a commercial airliner flew into the Empire State Building?

 

[fela fan]

conspiracy fans.
So what happened to the 'real' planes?
if the planes that crashed were some remote control missiles or whatever, then you're theory goes that the original planes were spirited away.
Then what happened to the crew and the passengers next?

If you were responding to me, simply read my last paragraph again.

 

[WouldBe]

If those WTC planes were remote controlled, that i take to understand that computers on the ground overrode the plane's computers. And by typing in the exact coordinates of the buildings, just let the computer do the work. Accuracy is assured, just as the plane's autopilot system is.

And just how wide do you think a runway is?

Someone has already stated thet the WTC towers were 1/2 Km wide. That is a lot wider than most runways. So if it is impossible to manually hit a target that big then how on earth do thousands of aircraft a day manage to LAND at airports all around the world??????

 

[editor]

My responce would be it is quite feasable. After all this sort of thing has been happening for decades. Wasn't it back in the 1950's that a commercial airliner flew into the Empire State Building?

It was in 1945 when a U.S. bomber flying through thick fog crashed into the Empire State Building, killing 14 people.
Source

 

[Bonfirelight]

If you were responding to me, simply read my last paragraph again.

Sorry, it was DrJazzz who had that theory

 

[fela fan]

And just how wide do you think a runway is?

Someone has already stated thet the WTC towers were 1/2 Km wide. That is a lot wider than most runways. So if it is impossible to manually hit a target that big then how on earth do thousands of aircraft a day manage to LAND at airports all around the world??????

Here is what i said in the paragraph above the one you have quoted me on:

"But those planes if they were flown by pilots employed by OBL were being flown manually, not on autopilot. At least that is the only credible way i can see that happening."

Does that answer your question? Coz if it does pay more attention to my posts.

 

[fela fan]

Sorry, it was DrJazzz who had that theory

That's alright, but he hasn't posted for ages on this thread!

Being a conspiracy theorist, i'd venture to suggest you're getting us all mixed up...

And that therefore perhaps you might not be reading the posts of those you view as conspiracy theorists with too much care.

Am i right??

 

[WouldBe]

I'm sure i contradict myself from time to time, but i don't think i have here.

I argued that computers on the ground could get a craft to land on mars. Teh distance to mars makes the end destination relatively small, but that's splitting hairs.

If those WTC planes were remote controlled, that i take to understand that computers on the ground overrode the plane's computers. And by typing in the exact coordinates of the buildings, just let the computer do the work. Accuracy is assured, just as the plane's autopilot system is.

But those planes if they were flown by pilots employed by OBL were being flown manually, not on autopilot. At least that is the only credible way i can see that happening.

I don't claim the planes to have been remote controlled, i asked questions earlier due to my doubts. But it seems plausible to me that normal pilots were on the planes who then found that they couldn't operate the computers, coz something was overriding them.

If the co-ordinates for the WTC had been entered into the autopilot the second aircraft would have come in smoothly NOT making a last second turn into the building.

The new autopilot system I mentioned earlier you do not enter airport co-ordinates you enter an airport code. The autopilot knows where this airport is located and navigates to it. So unless the WTC had being designated as an airport you wouldn't be able to enter the code for it either manually or remotely.

In responce to the questions I posed earlier the main runway at schiphol is 75m wide (google 'runway width'). The min runway width required for a 757 is 30m from the same search. So if a pilot can accurately guide an aircraft at low altitude in a built up area onto a target 30m wide then the WTC at the previously quoted 500m!! wide is a piece of piss.

 

[Loki]

Yes, it would take up half the aircraft with the technology required.
No, you couldn't secrete it covertly in a commercial airliner.
End of.

er, the PC you typed that message on is considerably over-specced for the simple task of taking off, navigating and landing a plane without human intervention. You don't need a cray supercomputer for the job so of course such a system could be added to commercial airliners. With a bit of studying of aeronautics I could write the program myself.

But I'm 100% sure such a system isn't in place.

 

[Diamond]

think I've made a bit of a mistake there in the dimensions: I've made a pretty elementary mistake of width for height. The actual width was 63.5 metres for the towers, but considering what's already been said about runway width it still demonstrates that the face of the towers was wider than a plane runway.

 

[Bonfirelight]

That's alright, but he hasn't posted for ages on this thread!

Being a conspiracy theorist, i'd venture to suggest you're getting us all mixed up...

And that therefore perhaps you might not be reading the posts of those you view as conspiracy theorists with too much care.

Am i right??

Although i think you're a conspiracy theorist - which you are becuase you have a theory about a comspiracy - it doesn't neccisarily mean i think you're a loony.

However i did mistakenly think you and Dr Jazzz were arguning the same line.

 

[Jangla]

think I've made a bit of a mistake there in the dimensions: I've made a pretty elementary mistake of width for height. The actual width was 63.5 metres for the towers, but considering what's already been said about runway width it still demonstrates that the face of the towers was wider than a plane runway.

However, the towers didn't have half a mile of runway lights guiding them in.

 

[Diamond]

However, the towers didn't have half a mile of runway lights guiding them in.

Fair point but considering their height and the numerous other skyscrapers in the background that could have been used as fixed points, the parallax effect would have been just as effective in a virtual marker to help guide the planes into the building.

 

[fela fan]

I did think half a km was quite wide! If only i'd equated it to a par 5, i'd've queried you.

Funny how we all accepted a tall building being wider than its height...

 

[WouldBe]

However, the towers didn't have half a mile of runway lights guiding them in.

There's a big difference between a strip of concrete at ground level surrounded by taxiways and surrounding roads in an urban jungle and a huge lump of steel and glass sticking up into the sky. The lights are there to clearly point out which lump of concrete is the actual runway.

 

[fela fan]

Although i think you're a conspiracy theorist - which you are becuase you have a theory about a comspiracy - it doesn't neccisarily mean i think you're a loony.

However i did mistakenly think you and Dr Jazzz were arguning the same line.

It's nice to know you don't consider me a loony! But even so, i'll live anyway even if you thought i was one. Sometimes i think a bit of insanity is a good protection from this world anyway...

But i'm not a conspiracy theorist either, coz unless provoked (and it's difficult not to be sometimes when told time and time again you're a nutter or you're stupid), i tend to ask questions about what surrounds the events, and to ask questions of the official version.

You see, i don't really have a theory on any of this, i just have a load of questions. And suspicions, but that to me ain't theory.

If something sounds plausible i add my comments to it.

But i end up spending quite a lot of time on these threads defending myself and others from the onslaught of character assassinations.

Which says quite a lot about the conspircy theorist accusers...