Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

Jangla said:
At the time, there was a LOT of hardware to install but progression of technology could have changed that significantly.
Indeed. And there's the rub.

But let's just go along with the premise that technology has miniaturised the equipment so that it becomes near-invisible to ground crew, airline staff and pilots.

That still leaves one crucial question unanswered: why isn't such a valuable, highly lucrative and much needed technology now available, over two years after the 9/11 attacks?
 
fela fan said:
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.
They're not a 'diverter of debate'. They're hard, substantiated, corroborated facts that blow king-size holes in the evidence-untroubled 'remote control' theory.
 
editor said:
They're not a 'diverter of debate'. They're hard, substantiated, corroborated facts that blow king-size holes in the evidence-untroubled 'remote control' theory.

They don't do that. I'm not denying the phone calls at all, but they don't blow any holes.

I'd like to hear from you, a computer expert if i'm not wrong, about whether my theory is possible. Namely that if i can control your computer from 10,000 kms away (and i can if we both have the appropriate software), why can't someone on the ground in the US gain control of the computers on a plane in the US?

That would presumably need only the software, and not a whole load of hardware to be added onto the planes.
 
fela fan said:
That would presumably need only the software, and not a whole load of hardware to be added onto the planes.
Right.

So where's the multi-billion dollar global industry supplying this desperately needed technology to major airlines who would pay through the nose for it?

Can't find a single example?

Perhaps it's not as easy as you and conspiracy fans think.
 
editor said:
Right.

So where's the multi-billion dollar global industry supplying this desperately needed technology to major airlines who would pay through the nose for it?

Can't find a single example?

Perhaps it's not as easy as you and conspiracy fans think.

I'm not looking for any bloody examples. I was making a point that yet again you fail miserably to address.

Okay, it takes a lot, but you've got my fucking feathers ruffled. I am not a conspiracy fan, o fucking kay?? Just stop being so fucking disingeneous, a favoured accusation of yours to others. You're doing it here big time.

I could just as easily sidetrack the debate consistently, just like you, by calling YOU a conspiracy fan. A fan of the conspiracy thrown to us by the USG and their official version. Which has a million holes in it.

Instead all you do is concentrate on a few holes in the alternative version put forward by members of Urban75. And incessantly drum on about the phone calls. So they made the phone calls, so bloody what? How does that alter things? How does that prove the USG are telling the truth with their version?

How you can believe that the whole series of attacks could only happen due to incompetence (on the biggest, most massive scale the world has ever seen by the biggest power on the planet) is beyond me.

Mate, i DON'T BELIEVE ANY CONSPIRACY. It's things I DON'T BELIEVE that drive my posts on these threads. Do you get the fucking difference?? Just read it carefully and note the difference.

Coz then you should kindly and politely refrain from calling me a conspiracy fan. It is the most disingeneous thing going on these threads. And you do it like a fucking chinese torture, drip drip drip.
 
Would you please shut the fuck up? Real people know real people who died on the planes, they weren't remote piloted.
 
I think that the technology to pilot a plane by radio control has existed since WW2. The Americans ran an operation where B17's were stripped out and loaded with explosive and then flown out over the Channel where the pilots would bail out and then the bomber was flown by radio control and crashed into German submarine pens or V1 launch sites in France.

This is just something that I read a long time ago. I'm sure Google will have the details. If I remember correctly one of the Kennedy's was killed on such a mission.

I would imagine that the technology has been refined in the last 60 years. Can't the Space Shuttle can be flown via remote control?
 
editor said:
Right.

So where's the multi-billion dollar global industry supplying this desperately needed technology to major airlines who would pay through the nose for it?

Can't find a single example?

Perhaps it's not as easy as you and conspiracy fans think.

Desperately needed, my arse. It's a case of 'if it aint broke, don't fix it'. Just how often does there come about a situation where an airliner is left without any pilots at all (except in disaster movies) who'd be capable of landing it safely? We're not talking about instances of pilot error - there are already failsafes to stop pilots banking more than a certain amount or stalling the aircraft so to provide full remote control is unnecessary. Also if the pilots are alive and well you can guarantee they aint going to risk letting a computer do their job for them.

Why are you clinging fervently to the fact that you're not aware of an 'off the shelf' or 'industry standard' remote control system for airliners? It's totally superfluous to the argument, but you seem to be entrenched and are using it as sandbagging. Are you worried about losing your grip on the few cogent counter-arguments you have left?

NASA did it in '84 - 17 years before 9/11; before the advent of fly by wire or the 757, 767 or 747-400. Fact.

You can admit it's possible to R/C an airliner and still deny that the 9/11 planes were R/C - I do!
 
I have a question to add to the mix. The Pentagon crash site. Many claim no wreckage means no passenger jet and many claim the plane was inside with the wings folded merfectly inside the fueselage. No-one seems to realise that the 70ft hole in the building was not there directly after the "crash". The section of the Pentagon collapsed a full 30 minutes afterwards. And can someone tell me how difficult it would be, given the immediate geographic location and the already documented obstructions outside the Pentagon (generators and cable reels mainly), to fly a passenger jet into a building at 500mph with the belly of the plane 15ft off the ground? One would presume a level run up would be required meaning you would have to fly at that height for some time to even have a chance of hitting the target.
 
fela fan said:
Instead all you do is concentrate on a few holes in the alternative version put forward by members of Urban75. And incessantly drum on about the phone calls. So they made the phone calls, so bloody what? How does that alter things?
It's not a 'hole': it's a ruddy great chasm. It proves beyond any doubt that the ridiculous stories of 'remote control planes' flown by invisible technology are utter bollocks - yet some people conspiracy fans still trot out the same shit.

Unless these calls can be adequately explained (along with the bizarre failure of husbands and wives to recognise a team of government sponsored impressionists), there is no case whatsoever that the planes could have been remotely controlled.

It's fantasy: and a deeply offensive one to those who lost their loved ones on those planes.
 
Possible chain of events presented by this site.

* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives — a cruise missile, if you like — is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control — without passengers — and crashed into the second tower. Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives — a cruise missile if you like — hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed — makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed its course.

* The trail is further confused by having The Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as — did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.
 
Jangla said:
Possible chain of events presented by this site.
As an exercise in fact free supposition and groundless conjecture, it's second to none.

And this statement reveals the utter desperation of the author: "Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers"

Still, I'm sure some people will be gullible enough to swallow this piece of fantasy wholesale, despite the complete absence of corroborating evidence.

Meanwhile, also available on the same site: yet more bonkers UFO drivel!
William Bramley : The Gods of Eden:
'UFOs have been lurking in the shadows of history for centuries,'
Sure they have, Billy Boy. Look! There's one above your head!
 
editor said:
As an exercise in fact free supposition and groundless conjecture, it's second to none.

And this statement reveals the utter desperation of the author: "Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers"

Still, I'm sure some people will be gullible enough to swallow this piece of fantasy wholesale, despite the complete absence of corroborating evidence.

Meanwhile, also available on the same site: yet more bonkers UFO drivel!

Sure they have, Billy Boy. Look! There's one above your head!
hehehehe :) I know a lot of it is far fetched but I think it's worth highlighting the small differences in the remote control theories doing the rounds. And I think there are some points of interest that could do with more discussion. For example, the first plane strike was witnessed by people who said it was a small aircraft and not a passenger jet. The only existing video footage seems to corroborate this and gives us the "mystery flash" seen before the plane hits the tower - a flash that has been removed from DVD released footage of the event.

While much of it could be drivel, there are still questions that are better answered by some of the theorists than the official version.

Anyone see the footage of WTC7 going down? I wasn't previously in agreement with any of the "demolition" theories but this thing seems to go down from the ground up 7 hours after the planes impacted the two towers.
 
Jangla said:
While much of it could be drivel, there are still questions that are better answered by some of the theorists than the official version.
Which ones are those then? Uninvented holographic planes, the CIA Mike Yarwood Squadron, stupid relatives unable to recognise their own loved ones or uninvented and invisible remote control planes?
 
editor said:
Which ones are those then? Uninvented holographic planes, the CIA Mike Yarwood Squadron, stupid relatives unable to recognise their own loved ones or uninvented and invisible remote control planes?
It's actually WTC7 I'm more interested in atm. There was no immediate collapse, no apparent damage to the roof aside from some cosmetic damage and it stood for 7 hours before going. There was a number of firefighters eye-witness reports that claimed to have seen "explosive-like" flashes at the base of the building seconds before collapse. And this is not a small building either - 47 floors I believe.
As far as the media and the USG are concerned, though, there has been little mentioned of WTC7 after 9/11.
 
WTC 7 is an interesting aside to the whole story but I think I remember reading how it collapsed (or was explained away if you're a theorist ) quite recently. I was talking to my friend who is an architecture student and had been doing a recent module on building collapses and how to avoid them (not quite as simplistic as that but you get the idea).

He said that in order to construct the twin towers so that they would be that tall and large a huge area of manhattan (the 'footprint' of the complex) had to be excavated several hundred feet down into the ground so as to provide adequate foundations (just like your house/apartment block is anchored to several feet into the ground). When the north and the south tower collapsed a large proportion of this ground became very unstable thanks to the huge forces involved and the collapse of the foundations into a super-hot inferno.

As a result of that WTC 7 collapsed thanks to weakened foundations or something like that. My friend then went on to explain that buildings collapse when critical structures and more importantly the material they're made from fails. Usually this is a gradual process of shearing or friction or any other force that will distort the building before the materials elastic limit is reached and the whole thing suddenly collapses (witness the North and South towers sudden but delayed collapse). It is most likely that WTC 7's foundations were weakened by the collapse of the two towers and it took 7 hours for a load to gradually come to bear on a critically damaged part of the structure that would force it to collapse.
 
Jangla said:
hehehehe :)The only existing video footage seems to corroborate this and gives us the "mystery flash" seen before the plane hits the tower - a flash that has been removed from DVD released footage of the event.

This flash could have been sunlight reflecting off the aircraft.

In a previous link this was explained as a missile being fired at the WTC. Just as the aircraft enters the building 2 more flashes are 'seen' from the tail. Again reported as missiles being fired to produce the large horizontal gash you would expect from the wings.

All aircraft I have seen have the battery in the nose of the aircraft. So as soon as the nose hits the building DC power would be lost.

Where does the power come from to fire the missiles at the rear of the aircraft?

Also at the point of impact the aircraft would start to crumple and break apart giving NO guarantee that the electrical systems would remain opperative.

How do you guarantee you can receive a signal to fire the missiles?
 
Theories abound that the first aircraft to hit the WTC was an executive jet.

Take a look at the video again.

I have captured one of the frames from this when the aircraft is closest to the tower so that sizes are can be compared. The aircraft is ringed in red.

The tower has previously being stated as 206 feet wide, lets round this to 200ft. The aircraft is heading for the center of the building. The left wing appears to be about 1/4 the width of the building and therefore about 50ft in length. So 2 wings + width of the fusalage gives a wing span in excess of 100ft.

How many exec jets have a wingspan this large???
 

Attachments

  • FirstStrike.jpg
    FirstStrike.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 66
omen said:
I would imagine that the technology has been refined in the last 60 years. Can't the Space Shuttle can be flown via remote control?
Anyone can buy a remote-control toy plane from a specialist shop. It's piss-easy technology; it simply hasn't been introduced in commercial airliners because the cost/need wasn't there.
 
WouldBe said:
Theories abound that the first aircraft to hit the WTC was an executive jet.
Those theories would need to explain where the passenger aircraft is now, and where all the passengers have disappeared to.
 
WouldBe said:
This flash could have been sunlight reflecting off the aircraft.
So why remove it from the retail version of a DVD covering the official story of the events of the day?

And if you take a look at the attached frame from the film link above, you will notice that the flash has a shadow and therefore can't be the reflection of the sun. Missile? I have no idea - seems unlikely - but if you take that video through a frame at a time, you can clearly see it's not a reflection and appears to be some sort of impact or explosion from within the building.
 

Attachments

  • plane.jpg
    plane.jpg
    9 KB · Views: 53
editor said:
As an exercise in fact free supposition and groundless conjecture, it's second to none.

I'm with you on that Ed. The above-quoted summary of events is rather dubious and fanciful IMHO.
 
Slash said:
I'm with you on that Ed. The above-quoted summary of events is rather dubious and fanciful IMHO.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's inaccurate. In fact, I'm as far from convinced on the whole 'remote control' issue as I am on the USG's version of events. However, I think many would agree that there are portions of the official story that are flaky at best and in these cases, it's good to explore other possibilities, regardless of how 'whacky' they may seem.

Didn't Holmes say something along the lines of 'Once you have elimated all the non-possibilities, the only thing that remains is the truth, no matter how improbable'?

Personally the remote control issue is too far out there but the possibility that the towers were intentionally brought down is, I think, not so unbelievable. If they were allowed to fall, the chances of killing hundreds more people in the surrounding buildings would have been much greater, as would the damage to the physical surroundings. By dropping them into their own footprint, you can ensure the collateral damage is kept to a minimum.
 
Jangla said:
Missile? I have no idea - seems unlikely - but if you take that video through a frame at a time, you can clearly see it's not a reflection and appears to be some sort of impact or explosion from within the building.
Clearly?! It sure doesn't look that way to me. And you are aware that video compression is going to introduce artefacts, aren't you?

But what about all the eye witnesses who saw the planes crash into the WTC? They would have seen the crash in infinitely more detail than fuzzy video clip and some were very closw to the towers.

So why aren't they queueing up to say that the plane was in fact an exploding remote control missile wotsit? Any ideas?
 
Jangla said:
It's actually WTC7 I'm more interested in atm. There was no immediate collapse, no apparent damage to the roof aside from some cosmetic damage and it stood for 7 hours before going. There was a number of firefighters eye-witness reports that claimed to have seen "explosive-like" flashes at the base of the building seconds before collapse. And this is not a small building either - 47 floors I believe.
As far as the media and the USG are concerned, though, there has been little mentioned of WTC7 after 9/11.

Explosive-like flashes - so kinda like when leaking gas pipes are ingnited as seen during and after earthquakes. The amount of material that collapsed would have made the ground unstable and severed/destroyed most of the undeground infrastructure.

If you undermine a building (even if it looks superficially okay), particularly one that's 47 floors and has substantial foundations it will collapse, but that doesn't mean it will do so that very instant. Again, earthquake damage is comparable and buildings can collapse hours after tremors finish.
 
editor said:
Clearly?! It sure doesn't look that way to me. And you are aware that video compression is going to introduce artefacts, aren't you?

But what about all the eye witnesses who saw the planes crash into the WTC? They would have seen the crash in infinitely more detail than fuzzy video clip and some were very closw to the towers.

So why aren't they queueing up to say that the plane was in fact an exploding remote control missile wotsit? Any ideas?
None. I have seen very few eye witness reports of the 1st crash at all as no-one was expecting it and therefore very few people actually had a good look at the aircraft.
 
Jangla said:
So why remove it from the retail version of a DVD covering the official story of the events of the day?

And if you take a look at the attached frame from the film link above, you will notice that the flash has a shadow and therefore can't be the reflection of the sun.

No idea why it's been removed from the DVD.

It could be a reflection of the sun if that frame covers the point of impact and the front of the aircraft has started to buckle / crumple and would therefore being solid have a shadow.
 
Jangla said:
None. I have seen very few eye witness reports of the 1st crash at all as no-one was expecting it and therefore very few people actually had a good look at the aircraft.
Right. So you'd rather put your faith in a highly compressed, artifact-laden video clip shot from miles away than trust the eye witness accounts of people who were right up close to the event? Why?

But I don't get your point. Are you saying that the first plane was remotely controlled and loaded with explosives and that the second one - witnessed by millions all over the world - wasn't?
 
editor said:
But what about all the eye witnesses

I have been trying to avoid eye witness 'evidence' as it is subjective. e.g. how many people regularly have a good look at aircraft flying at 900ft to be able to tell what type / size it is.

I have been trying to use the photo 'evidence' of the fantasists to proove them wrong by making what should have been simple observations. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom