Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[Diamond]

Pickman's model - well I don't know I found this interesting website the other day that states a very convincing case that during the 1960's the USG, as part of their black ops/dirty warfare campaign against the Higher Siluvian rebels deep in the Bolivarian Andes, had mastered the technique of resurrection therefore rendering Death a conspiracy of the living. I'll try and scare up some links

 

[Jazzz]

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

Not true.
Nine of the alleged hijackers have indeed come back, ostensibly from the dead!

 

[editor]

Lay off tribal princess editor.

No wonder the girls rarely venture into the politics forums!

Sexist twat.

I asked pertinent questions, politely.

 

[WouldBe]

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.

Very well put together but doesn't proove anything.

Wrt the pentagon crash:

The engine remains ARE in keeping with that of a 757. If you look at the 3 pictures towards the end of the page it shows the central hub of the engine behind a fireman. From the size in relation to the fireman, the hub would appear to be about 1m in diameter. Of course the turbine blades have been broken off in the impact. Looking at the photo below of the type of engine fitted to a 757 the central hub takes up a third of the engine size which is quoted as being 3m in diameter. So to claim that a 3m diameter engine wreckage found in the pentagon was from a F16 is absolutely ridiculous as it would be larger than the diameter of the F16 fusalage.

From the link they make this statement

Of course, the force in question would not have been vertical, but horizontal. This makes the folding even more improbable, as the force of impact would be acting along the only possible fold axis, rather than at right angles to it. Try folding any material, say a piece of cardboard, by applying it's edge (not it's surface) to a tabletop. Folding horizontally is not an option, since all the spars would be lined up in opposing (momentarily) the folding force. Being locally rigid, the spars would simply snap within milliseconds of the impact against a support column that did not yield to their impact; they would fail as soon as the force of impact exceeded the elastic limit of the material. If they did not fail and if the support columns did not give way, the only remaining possibility would be for the aircraft to remain almost entirely outside of the Pentagon.

This statement is of course false. The main spars in a wing are usually of an I beam section. These have a natural strength in the vertical direction. If you have ever tried standing on an unbraced 'floor joist' (their similie) they don't move in an up / down direction but do flex quite markedly in a side to side direction. So the wings could easilly fold back into the fuselage on impact with a substantial object.

Aircraft wings ...The main spar, a piece of solid aluminum alloy, has the same approximate shape as the floor beam of a house, being perhaps 10 cm thick and less than a metre high at the center of the aircraft.Two other spars, one aft of the leading edge (the forward spar) and one aft of the main spar (the aft spar) complete the main structural support of the wings.

Wrong. From Janes the 757 only has 2 spars in the wing NOT 3 as quoted above.

What was the outcome of the kerosene in a wheelbarrow test? as I couldn't see it. However from personal experience Alloy melts quite easilly even in a garden bonfire never mind in hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh and welcome to the boards RosaDeLuxe. I must warn you that editor can be quite wary of new posters on these threads, but you should know that underneath the ranting of his web persona he's actually quite fluffy really.

 

[WouldBe]

Not true.
Nine of the alleged hijackers have indeed come back, ostensibly from the dead!

I take it you have never heard of fake passports and ID's then?

 

[Jazzz]

I think it was a 757 though Tribal Princess made a mistake WouldBe

 

[WouldBe]

Quite right DrJ. The article referenced by TP does quote 757.

All gets a bit confusing doesn't it.

 

[Jazzz]

second time of writing... !

This statement is of course false. The main spars in a wing are usually of an I beam section. These have a natural strength in the vertical direction. If you have ever tried standing on an unbraced 'floor joist' (their similie) they don't move in an up / down direction but do flex quite markedly in a side to side direction. So the wings could easilly fold back into the fuselage on impact with a substantial object.

Thanks for going through at least one of the links WouldBe.

I've thought about this a lot and don't accept that there is any possibility that the wings could flex into the body of the aircraft - and that the D/L analysis is sound. You point out that a vertical 'I' section can give horizontally but because there are at least two arranged horizontally they will initially be prevented from doing so - to start with the only direction a whole wing could go is to slide down the fuselage of the plane. So the spars will be shearing, the way in which they are weakest. They will both be loading up together. We are talking about split milliseconds - when one goes, this will result in a sudden increase in the shearing force for the other(s) (already on the verge of failure) and hence they will all snap.

I'm a bit puzzled about the rotor part of the engine dimensions, but would be surprised if Longspaugh being an aircraft engineer couldn't judge the relative size of engine parts.

(gentle cough) editor.... tribal princess' posts were in fact penned by me, accidentally

 

[WouldBe]

I'm a bit puzzled about the rotor part of the engine dimensions, but would be surprised if Longspaugh being an aircraft engineer couldn't judge the relative size of engine parts.

I wouldn't let Longspaugh fix my bike let alone an aircraft

He states that there are 3 wing spans in a 757 even though he quotes the same reference as me (Janes) which clearly states that there are only 2.

He also states that the wing spars are stronger wrt horizontal forces than vertical forces. Yet he clearly gives the dimensions as being 10cm thick and just under 100cm heigh at the heighest point. Any fool knows that any material is weakest through it's thinest dimension which in this case would be from horizontal forces.

It may have been possible that at the point of impact the body of the aircraft decelerated very rapidly whilst the wings were still being pushed forward by the thrust of the engines. This could have resulted in a weakening or even failure of the joint between the aft wing spars. A fraction of a second later when the wings strike the walls the only thing holding them together is the joint between the 2 front wing spars therefore allowing the wings to fold back into the aircraft body.

Would you agree from the photographic evidence that the engine hub is about 1m in diameter?

From Pratt & Whitneys web site the air intake for the F-16 engine is only 35 inches. So if the hub is 33 inch (1m) that would leave room for only 1 inch of fan blade which would be pretty pointless and inefective.

 

[WouldBe]

Longspaugh also claims that kerosene wouldn't burn hot enough to destroy the aircraft and even goes into further detail on another page of that 911physics.org website. However in his calculations and theorising he only talks about kerosene as being flamable. He completely ignores other flamable material like carpet, plactics, seat covers, passengers luggage etc. He even completely ignores fuel in the pentagon i.e. carpets, reams of paperwork, desks chairs etc

This diagram is of the resulting damage to the Britannia airways 737 fire at Manchester airport in 1985. Most of the roof has metled / burnt away including the structural ribs. All this damage was caused by 1 punctured fuel tank and with a fire crew within a few hunderd yards of the site. In the pentagon crash the aircraft would have been ripped to bits and all 3 fuel tanks ruptured. The fire then burnt in an enclosed space which would allow the temperature to build even higher rather than being dispursed by the wind. It would also take a lot longer for the nearest fire engine to arrive at the scene allowing more material to be destroyed before the firemen could even start to fight the fire.

 

[Slash]

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.

I have no opinion on whether or not 9/11 was executed by R/C (OK, probably not I think). However, for any aircraft with 'fly by wire', remote control is not a problem at all. And with GPS you could plug in the coordinates of the tower and altitude and bingo. Look at the small R/C drones the US uses to blow up suspected terrorists.

 

[WouldBe]

I see DrJ hasn't come back regarding my comments or questions yet so lets have a further look at the 'evidence' from the physics911.org website.

This photo is of the engine remains from the pentagon crash. Longspaugh claims this cannot possibly be from a 757. Note the rounded front bit.

This photo is of a 757 engine. Note the very similar rounded front bit.

This photo is of the engine of a F-16 which Longspaugh claims hit the pentagon. Note the completely different front bit.

Also note from the 3rd photo that the central hub is about 1/4 of the overall diameter of the engine which is just under 36" in diameter. This would make the central hub about 9" in diameter. Go back to the first photo and look at the size of the central hub in comparison with the fireman stood close to it. If this is the central hub of a F-16 then the fireman is not much more than 18" high

In this animation from one of the security cameras at the pentagon, there does appear to be a small aircraft visible on the first frame. When these photos were posted up on the origional thread I do not recall the aircraft being there, however I do clearly remember there being a time / date stamp on the pictures. This sequence has therefore being clearly tampered with as no date / time stamp appears on these pictures which leads you to wonder what else has been altered???

So DrJ do you still accept the info in physics911.org as being realistic?

If you want me to I would be quite happy to destroy the 'factual' info given in your other links as well.

 

[editor]

However, for any aircraft with 'fly by wire', remote control is not a problem at all.

Really? Could you show me some examples of large passenger jets being flown by remote control?

And if the aircraft were flown by this remarkable remote control device, could you offer a guess as to what happened to the original planes, pilots and passengers?

 

[Slash]

Really? Could you show me some examples of large passenger jets being flown by remote control?

No but I can't show you anything else that goes on in the Skunkworks, Area 51, or any other country's experimental projects division. You know about computers mate - to tie a GPS and remote guidance system into a fly by wire aircraft would not be particularly difficult especially with what's been learned from drones, auto-pilot systems etc. A NZ garage inventor is building a GPS cruise missile in his garage with parts that cost less than NZ$5000.

And if the aircraft were flown by this remarkable remote control device, could you offer a guess as to what happened to the original planes, pilots and passengers?

Don't ask me - as I said above, I think it's doubtful they were piloted by remote control on 9/11 - I think the generally accepted summary of events on 9/11 is probably true. But to say you don't think it is possible to remotely control a passenger jet (with or without the knowledge of the pilots) seems a little naive to me.

 

[editor]

But to say you don't think it is possible to remotely control a passenger jet (with or without the knowledge of the pilots) seems a little naive to me.

Seeing as you can't produce a single example of a working passenger jet being flown by remote control I fail to see what's naive about thinking that's not what happened on 9/11.

If it's as easy as you claim, why hasn't every airline in the world adopted the technology?

 

[Slash]

Seeing as you can't produce a single example of a working passenger jet being flown by remote control I fail to see what's naive about thinking that's not what happened on 9/11.

I didn't say you'd be naive to think that's not what happened on 9/11, just that to state outright that it was not technically possible at that time seems a bit rich. 'Naive' wasn't the best word but the right word escapes me (as it so often does ). I believe, as you appear to, that the planes were probably piloted by very human (yet inhumane) terrorists into the towers.

If it's as easy as you claim, why hasn't every airline in the world adopted the technology?

Nobody who's ever used a Windows PC would fly with a robot airline, dontchathink? - a blue screen of death meaning, literally, death? Another reason might be the concern that some malicious hacker or disgruntled employee/air traffic controller might override the controls.

Answer me this: if it can be done with a drone then why not with an airliner?

 

[WouldBe]

Dr J as if I haven't posted enough proof have a look at this picture of the engine wreckage.

http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/low/va_pentagon_0901_135.jpg

This photo clearly shows the engine wreckage on the outside of the pentagon and to the left of the hole in the wall. Various people including Longspaugh and viallis have claimed this to have come from either a F-16, a Global hawk, a cruise missile or the Aux power unit of a 757.

In all these cases these are mounted centrally towards the rear of the aircraft. If the aircraft came in at a 45 degree angle from the right of the building this would put the engine on the right hand side of the hole in the wall and not the left. But lets ignore this convenient FACT for the time being.

I have already given evidence with links for the size of the engine hub of a F-16 but just to repeat so all the info is together it works out at about 9"

A cruise missile is only 20" in diameter Source So for starters it would be impossible to fit a 1m hub into it never mind the fan blades that attach to the hub. The engine in a cruise missile is a F107 Dimentions of the fan diameter are given as 12" the hub being approx 4" (judged from photos of the engine)

Global Hawk uses the AE3007H engine. Source From the picture of this engine the hub is approx 1/3 the diameter of the engine which is stated elsewhere as 43" giving a hub diameter of about 14" Engine pic

Aux power unit can be seen in this pic This appears to be only 2 - 3 foot in overall diameter and from the exploded view the hub is approx 1/4 the size so this would be only 6" - 9". Note it also has a flat not rounded end to the shaft.

So NONE of the engines above are big enough to have left this piece of debris. Also surely with a centrally mounted engine, the engine would have followed on it's flight path and dissapeared into the hole in the wall during the crash.

This leaves the Pratt & Whitney engine fitted to the 757 or the alternative Rolls Royce engine RB211-535 This states that the diameter of the fan is 74". The hub appears to be 1/4 of this giving a hub diameter of 18". The hub also has a pointed not rounded end.

Alternate engine type came from this article

Longspaugh also claims that the security camera photos proove that whatever hit the pentagon was doing well over 1000Kmh. From the above links

Global hawk speed = 640Kmh
Cruise Missile speed = 880Kmh

So if Longspaugh is correct about the speed of impact then NONE of his suggested alternatives apart from the F-16 are fast enough. Either that or he has mis-calculated the speed of impact.

 

[editor]

Answer me this: if it can be done with a drone then why not with an airliner?

Because drones are much, much smaller, they're far less complex to fly and they're designed and built to be used as drones. Large, highly complex passenger aircraft are designed for something quite different.

If it was possible to remotely control the 9/11 aircraft (notwithstanding the tricky problem explaining what happened to the pilots, passengers, phone calls etc), then the technology would be out there now making an absolute fortune.

Airlines would pay a small fortune for the technology. So why aren't they using it? In fact, how come there's never been a working demonstration with a large passenger aircraft?

 

[editor]

Various people including Longspaugh and viallis have claimed this to have come from either a F-16, a Global hawk, a cruise missile or the Aux power unit of a 757

Frankly, I wouldn't waste your time reading what that deluded anti-American fantasist Joe Vialls writes.

That odious, deceitful prick still thinks that Huntley is completely innocent.

 

[fela fan]

Because drones are much, much smaller, they're far less complex to fly and they're designed and built to be used as drones. Large, highly complex passenger aircraft are designed for something quite different.

If it was possible to remotely control the 9/11 aircraft (notwithstanding the tricky problem explaining what happened to the pilots, passengers, phone calls etc), then the technology would be out there now making an absolute fortune.

Airlines would pay a small fortune for the technology. So why aren't they using it? In fact, how come there's never been a working demonstration with a large passenger aircraft?

Editor, how about this:

Pilots flew the planes. At some stage they realised that the computers operating their flights were no longer responding to their commands. The autopilot wasn't responding to its set course. In trying to put it back on track, they realised that something else was controlling the plane's computers, and they WERE UNABLE TO rectify things.

 

[Slash]

Because drones are much, much smaller, they're far less complex to fly and they're designed and built to be used as drones. Large, highly complex passenger aircraft are designed for something quite different.

Today's training flight simulators are incredibly complex, and we have models which simulate every flight characteristic of a particular aircraft - we know how these babies fly. Add to this the fact that modern aircraft are to some degree 'self-aware' and there you have it. All that is needed is for data that is normally fed to the black box (airspeed, AoA, altitude etc) to be siphoned into the R/C feed, and adjustments received by R/C to be put into the right data streams to reach the actuators which drive the flaps, ailerons, throttles etc. It's a piece of piss for an aircraft company. Are you saying this is not technically feasible??? Yes or no?

If it was possible to remotely control the 9/11 aircraft (notwithstanding the tricky problem explaining what happened to the pilots, passengers, phone calls etc), then the technology would be out there now making an absolute fortune.

I don't have to explain what happened to any flight crew or passengers because I accept the official accounts of 9/11. Comprende?

Airlines would pay a small fortune for the technology. So why aren't they using it? In fact, how come there's never been a working demonstration with a large passenger aircraft?

If it does indeed exist, it's possible the technology simply isn't ready for prime-time yet.

(Sigh). And for the 1000th time I didn't say you could just walk into Argos and buy this shit. I said that it was something that could well be under development in 'Experimental Projects Divisions' of various countries. So what you're trying to say is that unless I can give you an off-the-shelf product you won't buy it (as it were)?

You also seem to be saying that because you don't know about it (as a product), it therefore doesn't exist, whereas all I'm saying is that it was technically possible at the time (all of 2 1/2 years ago).

 

[editor]

You also seem to be saying that because you don't know about it (as a product), it therefore doesn't exist, whereas all I'm saying is that it was technically possible at the time (all of 2 1/2 years ago).

You keep telling me that it's a 'piece of piss' to control a large passenger aircraft by remote control.

So what's your qualifications in this area? Exactly what experience do you have of remote control aircraft systems?

If it's so easy-peasy to install and implement why can't you show me a single example of a large passenger aircraft being controlled in this manner?

In fact, why don't you make a RC system yourself? If it's a 'piece of piss' to create why not do it and earn yourself billions!

 

[editor]

Editor, how about this:

Pilots flew the planes. At some stage they realised that the computers operating their flights were no longer responding to their commands. The autopilot wasn't responding to its set course. In trying to put it back on track, they realised that something else was controlling the plane's computers, and they WERE UNABLE TO rectify things.

Well of course anything's possible in much the same fashion as it's possible that a large UFO took control of the planes.

But there's still the thorny problem of those pesky phone calls to contend with and there not being a single recorded example of a large passenger aircraft being fitted with an undetectable, pilot-over-riding system.

 

[Jangla]

You keep telling me that it's a 'piece of piss' to control a large passenger aircraft by remote control.

So what's your qualifications in this area? Exactly what experience do you have of remote control aircraft systems?

If it's so easy-peasy to install and implement why can't you show me a single example of a large passenger aircraft being controlled in this manner?

In fact, why don't you make a RC system yourself? If it's a 'piece of piss' to create why not do it and earn yourself billions!

Actually Ed, there's one right here. The CID plane was used to test the effects of anti-misting agents in aviation fuel back in 1984. The overall tests were a failure as they crashed the plane into the wrong area of the runway to get proper results but the fact is that it is a very large passenger jet and it is 100% remote controlled. I had a nagging feeling about finding this as I saw it on tele a while back but had difficulty finding a link. At the time, there was a LOT of hardware to install but progression of technology could have changed that significantly.

 

[WouldBe]

Pilots flew the planes. At some stage they realised that the computers operating their flights were no longer responding to their commands. The autopilot wasn't responding to its set course. In trying to put it back on track, they realised that something else was controlling the plane's computers, and they WERE UNABLE TO rectify things.

So why was no Mayday message transmitted?

Flight 77 was apparently over Ohio when it deviated from course and headed to Washington. This would have given the pilot plenty of time to realise he was way offcourse, had lost control of the aircraft and to send a Mayday call out on the radio.

Unless of course this misterious R/C system could control EVERY system on the aircraft, Radios, fuel pumps, engine systems etc

Do you seriously expect us to believe that the pilots loose control of an aircraft and then just sit back to see where it takes them?

 

[fela fan]

So why was no Mayday message transmitted?

Flight 77 was apparently over Ohio when it deviated from course and headed to Washington. This would have given the pilot plenty of time to realise he was way offcourse, had lost control of the aircraft and to send a Mayday call out on the radio.

Unless of course this misterious R/C system could control EVERY system on the aircraft, Radios, fuel pumps, engine systems etc

Do you seriously expect us to believe that the pilots loose control of an aircraft and then just sit back to see where it takes them?

Wouldbe, i don't know. I'm only conjecturing. I get the impression you know about the technical side of things. What about those transponders i read about here that were turned off. Would that stop a mayday from being sent out?

Since i don't believe the official version, it comes down to pilots who knew they were going to kill themselves, or pilots who weren't able to control the plane.

I don't expect you to believe anything i write about. I'm only here to record my own beliefs, based on nothing more than my experiences in life and my instincts and my knowledge of politicians and the human mind. I never put forward any evidence to support what i say, coz i haven't got any and i don't know for sure what happened, coz i wasn't part of the party that planned the attacks, ok mate!

Oh, and i'm also hear to enjoy the ride, and to see the excellent case put forward by so many official version disbelievers, who do tonnes of research in their search for what happened.

We'll probably never know, so the next best thing for many people is to know themselves what happened to as great a degree as possible.

But often it's a mine field of insults and put downs!!

 

[fela fan]

Well of course anything's possible in much the same fashion as it's possible that a large UFO took control of the planes.

But there's still the thorny problem of those pesky phone calls to contend with and there not being a single recorded example of a large passenger aircraft being fitted with an undetectable, pilot-over-riding system.

Well for you mate, that counts as a point taken!! Albeit with tooth-extracting agreement, I mean why spoil a bit of humanness in your debating by counterbalancing it with the bit on UFOs?? You should know very well you can control my computer with the right software, even though my computer is 10,000 kms away from yours. So my point seemed very valid to me, not to be put down by throwaway UFO lines. Poor after a fashion. But i'll accept your grudging acceptance anyway!

And recently it seems that you have got yourself bogged down on these pesky phone calls. If you're down to just this and one or two other items that make you cling to accepting the official version (translation: mindboggling incompetence of mammoth proportions, by the only superpower in the world), then you might be close to a conversion mate...

... be careful you don't bump into any aliens on your way back from the pub .

 

[Loki]

Well for you mate, that counts as a point taken!! Albeit with tooth-extracting agreement, I mean why spoil a bit of humanness in your debating by counterbalancing it with the bit on UFOs?? You should know very well you can control my computer with the right software, even though my computer is 10,000 kms away from yours. So my point seemed very valid to me, not to be put down by throwaway UFO lines. Poor after a fashion. But i'll accept your grudging acceptance anyway!

And recently it seems that you have got yourself bogged down on these pesky phone calls. If you're down to just this and one or two other items that make you cling to accepting the official version (translation: mindboggling incompetence of mammoth proportions, by the only superpower in the world), then you might be close to a conversion mate...

... be careful you don't bump into any aliens on your way back from the pub .

I'm afraid the ed speaks common sense and I dunno what you're on about. The phone calls are very well documented by the loved ones interviewed who received these distressing calls. If remote control systems had been fitted to aircraft then it would have been announced in the media, I have zero doubt there; it would be in every airline's interest to assure nervous flyers.

 

[fela fan]

I'm afraid the ed speaks common sense and I dunno what you're on about. The phone calls are very well documented by the loved ones interviewed who received these distressing calls. If remote control systems had been fitted to aircraft then it would have been announced in the media, I have zero doubt there; it would be in every airline's interest to assure nervous flyers.

Depends upon who's reading eh? Don't be afraid either. One man's common sense (meat) is another man's ramblings (poison).

[And editor i'm not saying you ramble, i'm just making a point by analogy to loki.]

If you don't know what i'm on about, even though i've spelled it out most clearly, let me repeat: people are talking about remote control coz they don't believe there were any suicide pilots on board the planes. I am talking about the feasibility of controlling the planes' computers from the ground. Ie, no need to fit anything on the bloody planes!

And since with the appropriate software i can control your computer from 10,000 kms away, i see no reason (being a total non-technical person) why a plane cannot be controlled by computers on the ground.

Furthermore, those bloody phone calls are proving to be a good diverter of debate. If the official version must be believed simply because of this one aspect, ignoring all the other anomilies presented in that version, then people are hanging on very tightly indeed to their position on this topic.

Is it possible for two debaters, holding opposite opinions, to both be talking common sense??