Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[Jazzz]

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.

Just got on to computer now... apologies for going back to this post.

This distinction is not important. This demostrates that the technology existed for a converted, unmanned Boeing to be flown into the WTC. It could have been done by autopilot using GPS in the fashion described. If you had the terrible purpose of doing so, you would of course not program it to avoid the WTC, but rather fly into it!

Your point about the overriding of instructions is a pertinent one to 9-11, however. One of the many contradictions of the official story is that the degree of banking that we saw on the jet hitting the South Tower was too severe not to have been overridden by the flight computer - which is programmed not to allow pilots to make such severe adjustments. This is also the case with the fighter pilot manouvres of whatever flew into the Pentagon.

 

[editor]

This distinction is not important. .

What?!! It's very important.

You tried to back up your bonkers 'remote control theory by triumphantly declaring that an adapted passenger plane has been landed "over 100 times" by "remote control".

You were wrong. Completely wrong. It never happened. I trust you won't be "too weak" to admit that fact and you'll have the dignity to withdraw your personal insults.

Unless you can produce solid proof of a near-invisible, undetectable system successfully flying a passenger aircraft by remote control, then your latest 'theory' remains as plausible as your 'pooch proves Huntley's innocence' claim.

 

[Jazzz]

No, editor - I've always used 'remote control' to signify that a plane was guided electronically without onboard pilot in control. That's what's important.

What this proves is that such an unmanned passenger jet could easily hit the WTC back in 1994 - if all the guidance was done without an outside human navigating, that is even more impressive and takes human error out of the equation.

You are perpetually moving the goalposts and now quibbling over irrelevancies.

 

[editor]

No, editor - I've always used 'remote control' to signify that a plane was guided electronically without onboard pilot in control. That's what's important.

Grow up and admit that you got it wrong. Again.

Several people have pointed this simple fact out to you, so why are you "too weak" to admit your error?

You claimed that "the plane pictured was landed by remote control in 1994".

That is a lie, plain and simple and no amount of linguistic wriggling will alter the fact that an auto piloted plane is not being flown by 'remote control' and that Robolander could not have flown the planes into the WTC.

You haven't the slightest shred of proof to back up your bonkers theory, have you?

 

[Jazzz]

I didn't get it wrong - YOU got it incredibly wrong. For months you have been ridiculing the idea that a passenger jet could be flown and targeted unmanned. This is now disproved. When I said 'remote control' I meant that to mean controlled by something other than an onboard human pilot. If one sentence was mistaken in a technical sense it's absolutely neither here nor there to the argument as a whole.

 

[editor]

I didn't get it wrong - YOU got it incredibly wrong. For months you have been ridiculing the idea that a passenger jet could be flown and targeted unmanned. This is now disproved. When I said 'remote control' I meant that to mean controlled by something other than an onboard human pilot. If one sentence was mistaken in a technical sense it's absolutely neither here nor there to the argument as a whole.

Wriggle, wriggle wriggle.

Everyone here knows what a 'remote control' passenger aircraft is and it's not the same as an auto piloted one. They're completely different technologies, as has already been patiently explained to you by another poster.

Now can you actually produce a working pre 9/11 example of a passenger aircraft being remotely controlled by a near invisible, pilot-undetectable unit or is this self-deluding wriggle going to continue along its path of self denial for a while longer?

I expected more of you to be honest. You know you've got it wrong.

Oh. And how did they fake those passenger's calls?

 

[WouldBe]

This distinction is not important. This demostrates that the technology existed for a converted, unmanned Boeing to be flown into the WTC. It could have been done by autopilot using GPS in the fashion described.

Wrong. Very wrong.

In the new system I described earlier the autopilot is capable of flying from runway to runway. An airport code is entered into the autopilot system which knows the co-ordinates of the entered airport. The pilot taxies to the end of the runway and can then if he wishes engage the autopilot system so that the aircraft takes off, flies to it's destination and lands ALL under it's own control. There has to be a pilot in the aircraft to negotiate the taxiways to get to the end of the runway AND to wait permission to takeoff from the tower. Once airborne there is a small knob on the autopilot system to tell the autopilot what height to fly at as instructed by ground control so without a pilot present the aircraft would take off climb to the preset cruising height and remain at that height for the remainder of the flight until the plane made it's descent in to a KNOWN airport.

If you had the terrible purpose of doing so, you would of course not program it to avoid the WTC, but rather fly into it!

As I already have stated, aircraft fitted with this advance autopilot system ALSO has collision avoidance radar fitted which could hardly miss detecting the WTC so it WOULD HAVE to avoid hitting it.

Your point about the overriding of instructions is a pertinent one to 9-11, however. One of the many contradictions of the official story is that the degree of banking that we saw on the jet hitting the South Tower was too severe not to have been overridden by the flight computer - which is programmed not to allow pilots to make such severe adjustments. This is also the case with the fighter pilot manouvres of whatever flew into the Pentagon.

And if the degree of turn is too fast that the autopilot would not allow it then how do you get the autopilot to perform an illegal manouver?

 

[editor]

Wrong. Very wrong.

I fear that they're words that don't register with DrJ's lexicon when they're being used to debunk his latest bonkers theory.

Until he can produce proof of a working, pre 9/11, fully remote controlled passenger aircraft, his 'argument' is a complete non starter.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

In the new system I described earlier the autopilot is capable of flying from runway to runway. An airport code is entered into the autopilot system which knows the co-ordinates of the entered airport. <snip> Once airborne there is a small knob on the autopilot system to tell the autopilot what height to fly at as instructed by ground control so without a pilot present the aircraft would take off climb to the preset cruising height and remain at that height for the remainder of the flight until the plane made it's descent in to a KNOWN airport.

As I already have stated, aircraft fitted with this advance autopilot system ALSO has collision avoidance radar fitted which could hardly miss detecting the WTC so it WOULD HAVE to avoid hitting it.

And if the degree of turn is too fast that the autopilot would not allow it then how do you get the autopilot to perform an illegal manouver?

Hi Wouldbe.

Would you agree that the aircraft is therefore controlled by 'code'?

You seem to be stressing the importance of the systems 'normal' programming being the locations of airports. Obviously the system is not hardwired, as you would not be able to update it with the locations of new airports when they get built. So what you are describing is a system that would merely require the alteration of a couple of lines of the code (set co-ordinates and override pilot) to send any aircraft piling into the building of your choice with pinpoint accuracy. Interesting.

In the last 'big thread' on this subject (

Were the planes that hit the WTC remote controlled? Started by editor on 18-09-2003 - binned but PM me a mail addy for 1.5MB copy) we thrashed out a few facts concerning the technology.

To recap:

a] The technology and infrastructure for controlling aircraft via bi-directional satellite data link does indeed exist and is used (UAV's)

b] Modern computerised autopilot systems rely on their ability to control an aircraft in flight, as do...

c] Modern aircraft collision avoidance systems (which also) utilise bi-directional satellite data links.

d] There has been a shift in DoD policy regarding computerised avionics towards opting for 'Commercial of-the-shelf' solutions, the idea being that if commercial and military avionics share a common component base, the aviation industry reaps economic benefits.

e] Finally, that both United Airlines and American Airlines retro-fitted most of their respective fleets with 'Allied Signal's enhanced ground proximity warning systems' sometime after the order was placed in 1997. (I include this one for those who might ask for an example of when the 'firmware' could have been 'updated')

Since that last thread, I came across something new (to me) that I feel relevant to the discussion:

In May of 1946, sixteen B-17s were withdrawn from stores for conversion into drones with the addition of radio, radar, television, and other equipment. Six other Fortresses were converted as drone controllers. Most of the work was performed by the San Antonio Air Depot at Kelly Field in Texas.
(here)

Thats 1946. 'Fantastic technology' my arse.

I just don't know where all these people who line up to tell how 'impossible' it is get the information that allows them to hold such firmly held beliefs.

I do wish they would share it with me.

I don't know what happened that day. I do know that the explanation presented is not supported by hard evidence.

To date there has not been one single conviction of anyone anywhere in relation to the Sept 11th attacks (the sole conviction in Germany was recently overturned on appeal).

-

Wouldbe - Tell me some more about the 'collision avoidance systems'... where does the 'split' between AP and CAS happen in the control architecture? Can CAS override Auto-Pilot? Pilot? Can pilot override CAS? Didn't 'Hijackers' override it in order to hit buildings? Does all of that depend again on code?

 

[Loki]

Thats 1946. 'Fantastic technology' my arse.

I already explained above, it's not fantastic technology. Even I could write the program, GPS makes it a piece of cake. But to my knowledge it hasn't been implemented in commercial airlines.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I already explained above, it's not fantastic technology. Even I could write the program, GPS makes it a piece of cake. But to my knowledge it hasn't been implemented in commercial airlines.

Indeed, Loki. But you say that you are '100% sure such a system isn't in place.'

My point is that the difference between being able to remotely fly an aircraft into a target and the modern AP and CAS systems known to be fitted is a couple of lines of code in the flight control software. The Hardware is already in place.

 

[editor]

My point is that the difference between being able to remotely fly an aircraft into a target and the modern AP and CAS systems known to be fitted is a couple of lines of code in the flight control software. The Hardware is already in place.

Sure it is. So have you any idea why this billion dollar technology is being kept under wraps?

Airlines all around the world would be queueing up to buy it. So why isn't it available? Why can't anyone point me to a single solitary example of this fabulous technology in action, effortlessly controlling a large passenger aircraft by remote control?

Could it be because there's a whole load more involved than just 'writing a couple of lines of code'?

And if the 9/11 planes were somehow flown by this seemingly never-seen remote control, how come none of the thousands of engineers and coders have spoken out about it? Such technology would have required serious resources, so are al the engineers part of the Big Conspiracy too?

And then we have to be brought back to the thorny issue of these supposedly faked calls. Do you think it's possible to fake multiple calls to loved ones and, in particular, four phone calls between a husband and a wife and completely fool the partner, BB?

I don't. In fact, I think it's a deeply insulting, distasteful and disrespectful suggestion made by desperate conspiracy fans who care little for anything other than pursuing their own fantasies. Do you agree?

 

[bigfish]

'However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention occurred on those planes, a possibility that any credible investigation would hardly ignore. All the more so because the necessary hardware isn't just a cockamamie theory: a fully developed, totally programmable remote flight control platform actually exists. Suggestively named the "Flight Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation of Rosslyn, Virginia, which maintains web pages devoted to the FTS and various subsystems:

A system overview:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

The transmitter hardware:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS

Related software:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/MkVSW

The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.'

http://bigeye.com/hijackers.htm

 

[editor]

'However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention occurred on those planes, a possibility that any credible investigation would hardly ignore.

For any of these exciting remote controls theories to hold water, a host of faked phone calls would have had to have been manufactured which were so incredibly accurate that they would have completely fooled everyone - even people who had been married for over a decade.

Do you believe that it's likely that all those husbands, wives and loved ones could have been fooled by this hitherto unknown Crack CIA Impressionists Battalion (Murdering US Citizens Division), bigfish?

How many more people would have such a squad brought in to this ever widening circle of conspiracy? So far we've got (at least) engineers, electronics experts, pilots, ground crew, aviation experts, scientists, electricians, remote control manufacturers, hardware manufacturers, software authors, politicians, civil servants, army personnel and, of course, impressionists.

 

[fela fan]

In a moment of clarity on a sunny morning in thailand it's just hit me.

With regards to 911, there are those who are looking for information to help them understand what went on in those attacks, and who was behind them. In doing so the put forward theories and back them up with research. They in short are looking for the truth.

They are derided as 'conspiracy theorists' who deeply insult their accusers.

The others are just too busy trying to prove the doubters (CTs) WRONG.

In the former camp it's about looking for the truth, in the latter camp it's about being right or wrong irregardless of how the debate progresses.

Everyone will know which camp they're in.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

"You're either with us or against us", eh?

I know I said I'd given up, but I can't help saying that none of the things that I mentioned on the second post on this thread have been addressed by anyone.

Forget the idea of whether it's possible or not. Christ, it's theoretically possible, although it would be a lot harder than has been suggested (I've done a bit of work on self-piloting and remote-controlled systems in the past). I'd be a bit more inclined to believe the possibility if anyone had actually put forward any reason why I should believe it happened. Any evidence for it, apart from its mere possibility.

The fact that there are holes in the official USG explanation - no shit Sherlock, the Pope is apparently also Catholic - does not mean that any alternative explanation gains any more credibility. The two things are exclusive. I'm still yet to see any convincing positive justification for believing that any planes were remote controlled. All I end up with is two theories, neither of which are believable - and to be frank, the "official" explanation has more to it than the "remote controlled planes" one as far as I can see, just on the idea that planes were real and piloted by people. Both of them have immense, unproven holes in them, just one has something believable in it.

If your explanation makes less sense than Bush's you've really got to look at what you're saying.

 

[Jangla]

"You're either with us or against us", eh?

I know I said I'd given up, but I can't help saying that none of the things that I mentioned on the second post on this thread have been addressed by anyone.

Forget the idea of whether it's possible or not. Christ, it's theoretically possible, although it would be a lot harder than has been suggested (I've done a bit of work on self-piloting and remote-controlled systems in the past). I'd be a bit more inclined to believe the possibility if anyone had actually put forward any reason why I should believe it happened. Any evidence for it, apart from its mere possibility.

The fact that there are holes in the official USG explanation - no shit Sherlock, the Pope is apparently also Catholic - does not mean that any alternative explanation gains any more credibility. The two things are exclusive. I'm still yet to see any convincing positive justification for believing that any planes were remote controlled. All I end up with is two theories, neither of which are believable - and to be frank, the "official" explanation has more to it than the "remote controlled planes" one as far as I can see, just on the idea that planes were real and piloted by people. Both of them have immense, unproven holes in them, just one has something believable in it.

If your explanation makes less sense than Bush's you've really got to look at what you're saying.

Wot 'e said!

 

[WouldBe]

Hi Wouldbe.

Would you agree that the aircraft is therefore controlled by 'code'?

Yes of course a computer is controlled by 'code'

So what you are describing is a system that would merely require the alteration of a couple of lines of the code (set co-ordinates and override pilot) to send any aircraft piling into the building of your choice with pinpoint accuracy. Interesting.

Yes you could reprogram the co-ordinates in the crashed planes but then major security issued would be involved. How did the engineers get aboard undetected and waht has happened to them? How do you modify 4 aircraft and make sure that these were the 4 aircraft used on these specific flights? Even if someone could 'pull strings' so that scheduled maintenance was delayed / brought forward no 'pulling of strings' could overcome unforseen breakdowns requiring the aircraft to be pulled from service.

Wouldbe - Tell me some more about the 'collision avoidance systems'... where does the 'split' between AP and CAS happen in the control architecture? Can CAS override Auto-Pilot? Pilot? Can pilot override CAS? Didn't 'Hijackers' override it in order to hit buildings? Does all of that depend again on code?

As I understand the system CAS would have to overide the AP system as the AP system cannot detect other aircraft / buildings / geographical features on a collision course with the aircraft. If CAS detects an impending collision an audio / visual warning is given. If the pilot disregards this then yes the pilot can be overridden.

 

[WouldBe]

A system overview:

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS

From that link :

One of FTS's major strengths is its flexibility. A fully programmable command library provides a variety of mission-specific command tones in addition to the required Command Destruct sequence.

From the system brocure PDF download:

The flight Termination System (FTS) provides a fully redundant system capable of controlling the termination of airborne test vehicles... Customers use FTS for terminating tests of both recoverable and non-recoverable systems...FTS is programmable and flexible in it's ability to meet the changing requirements of today's modern test ranges.

At the end of the test, the CTS unit sends a signal to test vehicle for destruct.

So this is a system for use on (militay) test ranges, resulting in the destruction of the test vehicle. I'm not sure many commercial airlines would be happy having this system installed in their aircraft.

 

[Jazzz]

Wrong. Very wrong.

In the new system I described earlier the autopilot is capable of flying from runway to runway. An airport code is entered into the autopilot system which knows the co-ordinates of the entered airport. The pilot taxies to the end of the runway and can then if he wishes engage the autopilot system so that the aircraft takes off, flies to it's destination and lands ALL under it's own control. There has to be a pilot in the aircraft to negotiate the taxiways to get to the end of the runway AND to wait permission to takeoff from the tower. Once airborne there is a small knob on the autopilot system to tell the autopilot what height to fly at as instructed by ground control so without a pilot present the aircraft would take off climb to the preset cruising height and remain at that height for the remainder of the flight until the plane made it's descent in to a KNOWN airport.

....

As I already have stated, aircraft fitted with this advance autopilot system ALSO has collision avoidance radar fitted which could hardly miss detecting the WTC so it WOULD HAVE to avoid hitting it.

...

And if the degree of turn is too fast that the autopilot would not allow it then how do you get the autopilot to perform an illegal manouver?

Would Be - I'm not disputing the technicalities of what exactly constitutes remote control or autopilot-in-the-loop. I welcome the one correction to one sentence which may have been inaccurate in a technical sense.

But you are missing the point of this thread, perhaps having not read countless of these threads before. I have proposed my theory of how 9-11 MAY have been perpetrated involving unmanned military drone aircraft one of which was an altered passenger jet.

editor and others have ridiculed this idea on the basis that the idea of a passenger jet flying itself is ludicrous, although Operation Northwoods proposed a similar plan in the 1960s! What I have shown is that it is far from ludicrous.

If the technology existed to land a passenger jet by itself, the US military could certainly line one up on a military runway and then get it to take off by itself, too. And then crash into the WTC with devastating results. We are not talking about a jet still functioning as a commercial aircraft here - it would be specifically programmed to crash into the WTC, not fly round it. This wasn't the jet that took off with passengers and pilot.

You may not believe that that is what happened, certainly not on the basis of this thread, but I'm sure that you wouldn't argue against it on the basis that it is implausible from a technological standpoint, as editor and others have been doing.

And the purpose of this thread is to settle that argument.

 

[bigfish]

So this is a system for use on (militay) test ranges, resulting in the destruction of the test vehicle. I'm not sure many commercial airlines would be happy having this system installed in their aircraft.

I'm sure you're right WB, but lets face it, this particular RC system, which was developed and tested in the field by a corporation controlled by a founder of the neocon movement who is a known business associate and friend of the pResident, would be ideal for a covert black operation don't you think?

 

[pengaleng]

How did the engineers get aboard undetected and waht has happened to them? How do you modify 4 aircraft and make sure that these were the 4 aircraft used on these specific flights? Even if someone could 'pull strings' so that scheduled maintenance was delayed / brought forward no 'pulling of strings' could overcome unforseen breakdowns requiring the aircraft to be pulled from service.

Just to go over this point - the theory is that the jets which caused the impacts were not the ones that they are supposed to be in the official theory. We know that the Pentagon was not hit by flight 77 thanks to this analysis. Whatever hit it was certainly a lot smaller than a 767, quite possibly a drone such as Global Hawk. A missile could have been fired before entry.

Similarly, the theory that the South Tower was hit by flight 175 is contradicted by this analysis comparing the relative dimensions of the plane we all saw with a 767.

We know very little about the plane that hit the North Tower, except that it certainly doesn't look much like flight 11 from what can be made out on the video (there's a link for the quicktime version on this page. One can make out what seems to be a missile being fired just before entry.

The theory that the planes were switched is entirely in keeping with the transponders all being turned off, no hijack codes broadcast, lack of identifiable debris, lack of black box data (they always find the black boxes! until 9-11), lack of any pilot shouting that his plane was being hijacked, etc.

 

[WouldBe]

But you are missing the point of this thread, perhaps having not read countless of these threads before. I have proposed my theory of how 9-11 MAY have been perpetrated involving unmanned military drone aircraft one of which was an altered passenger jet.

I argued on your origional thread, so have read countless posts before and have even waded through pointless web pages posted up as supposed evidence.

Perhaps you could explain WHICH of the crashes involved a modified passenger jet?

Are you sure you mean 'military drone' or is this just another techno phrase you have stumbled on and decided to drop in to sound good?

 

[pengaleng]

I think 'tribal princess' was good enough to address those points in the post which hit just two minutes before yours.

 

[Jazzz]

I've managed to log in now I think

great posting TP!

 

[Loki]

Indeed, Loki. But you say that you are '100% sure such a system isn't in place.'

My point is that the difference between being able to remotely fly an aircraft into a target and the modern AP and CAS systems known to be fitted is a couple of lines of code in the flight control software. The Hardware is already in place.

Is it? What's it called? And by the way it needs software too. Where's it all documented? Surely it would have been publicised - after all it would be a major reassurance to airline passengers to know that such a system is in place. Airlines would be champing at the bit to announce such a system first!

 

[editor]

The theory that the planes were switched is entirely in keeping with the transponders all being turned off, no hijack codes broadcast, lack of identifiable debris, lack of black box data (they always find the black boxes! until 9-11), lack of any pilot shouting that his plane was being hijacked, etc.

So what happened to the original planes, crew and passengers? Where did they go? Were they taken off somewhere and mass murdered? Who killed them?

How come no flight controllers noticed the switch?
How did they fake the calls?

And how many people do you think would be involved in such an incredible deception?

Why do you think none of them broke silence once they realised that their work was used to mass slaughter American citizens on American soil and destroy one of the US's most prestigious buildings?

I'd imagine even the most die hard US patriot would have trouble accepting this - particularly in light of the failure to find OBL and the WMD.

 

[Pickman's model]

lots of interesting points made: but none of the people on board (or allegedly on board) is going to come back and enlighten us.

 

[Jazzz]

Lay off tribal princess editor.

No wonder the girls rarely venture into the politics forums!

 

[RosaDeLuxe]

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...

Sorry to butt in here, but have you read anything about this?

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175

It's a small site as it covers one small area, but there is quite a bit of reading. Are you up to it?