Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[Jangla]

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?

I will admit that I can't justify putting my faith 100% in the video but I will put more faith in that than the testiment of people that have an understandable bias on an event they were not expecting - I just don't think you can put that much trust in them relating events accurately when the liklihood is that no-one really saw it (the first impact, that is).
I'm not really confident enough to say if either plane was remote controlled or whether the first plane was a passenger jet. In fact this thread covers a number of topics that some people consider to be the whole story (i.e. the conspiracy view) but I see as very seperate possibilities that may form some part of the actual truth. The main issue I have with the remote control scenario is, as you rightly pointed out, Mike, is the enourmous depth to which the conspiracy would have to run. However, in an earlier post, I showed the technology exists and has been used to control large commercial airliners in the course of experimenting with anti-misting agents in aviation fuel. So while it is unlikely in relation to 9/11, because it is possible, it must be considered an option.
It's the same with the demolition theory. Buildings do have this kind of fail safe mechanism and therefore it should be considered an option - but only if the WTC can be shown to have had this technology installed. There is footage that shows strange jets of matter being ejected at uniform intervals down the building at the time of collapse. This doesn't prove the point but it does give remit to consider it an option.

I guess what I'm getting at is that while I don't buy into all of the theories surrounding the events, I feel some deserve more consideration than others given certain pieces of evidence. Evidence which is refuted by some and may be considered low quality but when so much evidence has vanished in this case (most of the Pentagon plane, most of the plane that crashed on it's way to it's suposed target, countless government documents etc.) we have to look at what is left. Far from ideal I know.

Mike, about these 'artefacts' - can you think why they would be removed from the DVD? Honest question as you obviously know far more than I about video compression and the like.

 

[editor]

Mike, about these 'artefacts' - can you think why they would be removed from the DVD? Honest question as you obviously know far more than I about video compression and the like.

I've no idea - it could be one of a multitude of things. Try experimenting with a JPEG at different compression levels and see how the image changes - certainly artifacts can be exaggerated as a result of the way that compression routines run.

Without seeing the before/after videos I can't comment any further, although an uncompressed version will almost certainly be 'smoother' and have a wider dynamic range.

will admit that I can't justify putting my faith 100% in the video but I will put more faith in that than the testiment of people that have an understandable bias on an event they were not expecting - I just don't think you can put that much trust in them relating events accurately when the liklihood is that no-one really saw it (the first impact, that is)..

I find that a truly bizarre statement. What's this 'understandable bias'?

Videos can be altered and doctored. It's a bit harder with people.

If I saw a missile dressed up as a plane flying past me I'd certainly have no trouble remembering the fact.

And unless you're (bizarrely) claiming that only the first plane was a remote control missile, your argument falls to pieces by the fact that the second plane was seen by millions of people. And no one saw anything other than the terrible sight of a hijacked passenger plane smashing into a building killing thousands of people.

Oh, and until you can produce a working example of a standard passenger plane being fitted with near invisible equipment and then flown large distances by remote control, you haven't proved that case one tiny bit.

 

[Jazzz]

damn just lost a huge post!

 

[Barking_Mad]

Meanwhile back in the real world Iraq is going up in smoke......Here's a grip - get hold of it.

 

[fela fan]

Oh, and until you can produce a working example of a standard passenger plane being fitted with near invisible equipment and then flown large distances by remote control, you haven't proved that case one tiny bit.

You and your equipment, visible or invisible.

I've already pointed out that equipment didn't need fitting. About three times, and addressed to you amongst others. Your absence of refutation towards what i say tells me i've made a pertinent observation. Which, again, is:

that if i can control your computer from 10,000 kms away (and i can), and neither you nor me can physically see the software required, then why can't the aircraft computer be controlled by others on the ground?

No equipment needed, just software, and as you know that can't be seen.

So real pilots on the planes, suddenly finding they cannot control the computer/autopilots. Suddenly finding the computer won't respond to their input.

Stop them somehow from speaking with ATC, and there you have 'remote controlled' aeroplanes, replete with real live living human being pilots.

And no invisible equipment.

Now, as you're a computer expert, i give you one last chance to tell me i've got this wrong, or i will take it that my theory is a workable one.

 

[Jazzz]

WouldBe - sorry it's taken a little while to get back to you - already lost a big post.

I don't feel qualified or able to identify what engine the mystery engine part came from. I thank you for the article by Christopher Bollyn which seems the best on the topic - it suggest that Flight 77 must have had the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine, not the Pratt & Whitney. And you express doubt yourself that the part could have come from the RB211. But what seems pertinent here is that no-one seems able to identify the part in question and those in authoritative positions who should be able to do so seem strangely reluctant to delve into the matter. If it was from Flight 77 - why is this the case?

Here's another version of the article with a better picture.

And perhaps even more pertinent is that not a single other piece of debris has been officially or even unofficially identified as coming from Flight 77. You must admit this is quite extraordinary.

And the crucial part of the 'missing wings' analysis was the missing wings - I wasn't bothered about the rest of it. I don't understand how your theory of how the wings may failed on the initial impact in a way which allowed the later fold in works (my previous comment on why the wings must shear off needs no spar connection), and it sounds utterly fantastic in any case. It only takes one contradiction to disprove a theory, and I certainly can't be persuaded to believe that flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the basis of a mystery engine part which no-one has identified!

I seriously question your analysis of the wing length of the object that hits the North Tower (supposedly flight 11). The video is blurred horizontally due to the camera tracking and you could similarly argue that the antenna is 40ft wide compare. I note that you don't comment on the length of the right wing. I can't even see one in your frame.

 

[WouldBe]

that if i can control your computer from 10,000 kms away (and i can), and neither you nor me can physically see the software required, then why can't the aircraft computer be controlled by others on the ground?

No equipment needed, just software, and as you know that can't be seen.

The ability to control a PC remotely is a feature of the windows software and requires both computers to be networked.

Auto pilots do not use Windows software and are not fitted with network cards with 10Km network cables trailing out the back of the aircraft But seriously, an auto pilot system has no need to talk to or receive data from the ground. To be able to do this would require an interface and transmitter which would be visible equipment installed in the aircraft.

I would have thought that if a pilot did loose total control of his aircraft he would try and put it down somewhere to cause minimum loss of life i.e. a field rather than the middle of the city. An autopilot system has no control over the fuel pumps or the engine system other than the throttle control. So by switching off the fuel pumps starving the engines of fuel a pilot could control where the plane crashed instead of just sitting back to see what happened next.

 

[editor]

Here's another version of the article with a better picture.

Can't you find a more credible source than a conspiracy-tastic site stuffed full of tosh about UFOs galore, Princess Diana assassination, human faces on Mars, crop circles and all the other bonkers nonsense?

 

[Jangla]

If I saw a missile dressed up as a plane flying past me I'd certainly have no trouble remembering the fact.

But that's the point - no-one really saw the first plane in any detail - it happened out of the blue, at 500mph and 900ft in the air. There are eye-witness reports, for example, that state it was a small private jet and these witnesses are certain of this fact. Then an unnamed source in the UACC claimed it was an American Airlines passenger jet and the first eye-witness reports were ignored. Same goes for the Pentagon incident; eye-witnesses said it was a small business jet but another report given much later said it was an AA passenger jet and again the first eye-witness accounts were ignored.

And unless you're (bizarrely) claiming that only the first plane was a remote control missile, your argument falls to pieces by the fact that the second plane was seen by millions of people. And no one saw anything other than the terrible sight of a hijacked passenger plane smashing into a building killing thousands of people.

Seen by millions indeed - but how many spotted the large, unexplained lump on the belly of the plane? Not many. Now I know the video quality is low and no doubt highly commpressed but that thing is there in every frame and the lighting seems to indicate it's not an 'artefact'.

Oh, and until you can produce a working example of a standard passenger plane being fitted with near invisible equipment and then flown large distances by remote control, you haven't proved that case one tiny bit.

Then I can do no more on this point. You asked for proof of a large passenger jet being controlled remotely - I have done this. As for secreting it covertly in passenger jets? Not sure. That would depend on the hardware and software already in the plane, whether it could be networked in the first place and whether a wireless network would be able to cope with the data transfer rate. You see there are two schools of thought in the remote control camp. One says that control was taken from the pilots, the other says there were no pilots in the first instance as they switched the planes. The second plane should have had no lump attached to it's underbelly which lends itself to the latter theory. I'm still undecided.

Was very interested in the whole 'artefacts' thing though and have been looking around generally for more information on it - gives you a real head start when it comes to looking at these kind of sources and deciding on their authenticity. In fact the video with the unexplained flash in it has more to it than I first thought. Various sources are mentioned and it seems that the frames either side of the flash were doctored before even the original footage was released (to what end we will probably never know). Unfortunately this means I can't justify the video as good footage - I was under the impression that the DVD having frames removed was the only doctoring that had ocurred.

 

[WouldBe]

Here's another version of the article with a better picture.

There are a few comments in that link have me wondering about the status of some so called experts.

AFP asked Schwarz if this could be a disc from a smaller engine, such as the Global Hawk’s AE 3007H. “It could come from any jet engine,” Schwarz said.

What a stupid statement. The disc cannot possible come from an engine that is smaller than the disc.

The Global Hawk engine is hand built at the Rolls Royce plant in Indianapolis and has an opening diameter of 43.5 inches. Schwarz said he did not have a technical diagram of an AE 3007 engine to consult.

Because the disc in the photo appears very similar in size and shape to the front fan of a Global Hawk engine, AFP asked Schwarz in what position is the solid disc found behind the front fan of a turbofan engine. “Immediately,” Schwarz said

So the expert has no technical diagrams of the engine to consult but knows that the mystery disc is immediately behind the front fan !!!!!

And perhaps even more pertinent is that not a single other piece of debris has been officially or even unofficially identified as coming from Flight 77. You must admit this is quite extraordinary.

Not suprising at all. Most of the aircraft is aluminium alloy which is a soft metal, coupled with the forces involved in the crash there wouldn't be much larger than a foot or 2 left and that that was left would be affected by twisting, crushing, burning etc so it would be very difficult to tell what it had come from.

I seriously question your analysis of the wing length of the object that hits the North Tower (supposedly flight 11). The video is blurred horizontally due to the camera tracking and you could similarly argue that the antenna is 40ft wide compare. I note that you don't comment on the length of the right wing. I can't even see one in your frame.

I can't comment on the size of the right wing because it's not visible but it has to be there. Aircraft don't fly straight and level with only one wing.

Admittedly there is blurring in that video but it's the only source of evidence available to us for what hit the North tower. Would you agree that any blurring due to camera movements particularly with the aircraft just a few feet from impact, would affect both the tower and the aircraft equally? If so then the size comparisons would be right. Otherwise how do you explain the bluring affecting the aircraft more than the building?

 

[editor]

Of course, all this wild speculation about 'missiles' is all pie in the sky until someone can explain all the calls made from the plane.

One husband spoke to his wife four times.

Anyone care to come up with an exciting conspiracy theory that can offer a credible explanation how multiple faked calls could be so incredibly convincing that they would fool their nearest and dearest?

And then we could put the theory to the test: I'll wager £100 that it would be impossible to fake four calls from my girlfriend.

Any takers amongst the conspiracy fans?

 

[Jangla]

Of course, all this wild speculation about 'missiles' is all pie in the sky until someone can explain all the calls made from the plane.

One husband spoke to his wife four times.

Anyone care to come up with an exciting conspiracy theory that can offer a credible explanation how multiple faked calls could be so incredibly convincing that they would fool their nearest and dearest?

And then we could put the theory to the test: I'll wager £100 that it would be impossible to fake four calls from my girlfriend.

Any takers amongst the conspiracy fans?

I'll have a stab.

From the Washington Post:

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."

"They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have said," chuckled one of Papcun's colleagues.

But while we're on the subject of credibility, one of the flight attendants made a call and accurately described the situation. 2 passengers from business class and 2 others (the USG claims there were 5 hijackers) hijacked the plane and even gave their seat numbers. Seat numbers that didn't match the USG's version of events. Until the USG can provide us with a credible story, I will treat all possibilities equally.

 

[editor]

I'll have a stab.

Good grief. That is both a ridiculous and desperate comparison.

There is a world of difference between producing a tape that sounds like someone to his colleagues and faking a live conversation between a husband and a wife who have been married for a decade.

And exactly where would they have got these "various high quality recordings" of the passengers needed to make such a tape? Hidden microphones over the kitchen table?

With each ludicrous 'explanation' the amount of people who must have been involved in this conspiracy grows daily.

Aeronautical experts, explosive experts, software specialists, phone tappers, voice replicators, airlines, jet propulsion experts, military experts, government offices, fitters, engineers, computer experts, leading scientists, video experts - the list of specialist skills needed goes on and on and on.

So how come none of these people have uttered a peep? Do you really think that all those Americans wouldn't have the slightest problem about seeing their scientific work being used to mass murder thousands of their fellow citizens and New York blown up in an unprecedented, unprovoked attack with vague aims?

 

[editor]

But while we're on the subject of credibility, one of the flight attendants made a call and accurately described the situation

Hold on. Make your mind up.

So you're now saying that the phone calls weren't faked after all?

So what was all that stuff about voice replication?!

(PS: there's nothing unusual about people changing seat numbers on less busy flights. I've done it myself)

 

[Slash]

To be able to do this would require an interface and transmitter which would be visible equipment installed in the aircraft.

I disagree. There is no reason it should need to be visible, unless it was designed for the pilots to be aware and have control of. And there are enough avionics and aerials and other whatnot on the plane to enable radio, GPS etc. No reason it couldn't use existing aerials etc.

I'm being devil's advocaat here - I don't think the planes were R/C... nonetheless it wouldn't be terribly hard to do if some engineers were allowed private access to the plane for a few hours.
^^^
Actually, make that weeks/months...

Edited to be a little more realistic with timeframe for modifications.

 

[Slash]

There are eye-witness reports, for example, that state it was a small private jet and these witnesses are certain of this fact.

The first I heard of 9/11 was on General forum in U75, and IIRC the aircraft was reported as being a private jet (LearJet or similar I guess). Ed, do we still have the original thread archived somewhere? (not that you'd be too keen to add fuel to the fire though of course )

 

[editor]

I don't think the planes were R/C... nonetheless it wouldn't be terribly hard to do if some engineers were allowed private access to the plane for a few hours.
^^^
Actually, make that weeks/months...

Edited to be a little more realistic with timeframe for modifications.

Indeed: and have there been any reports of any of these planes being mysteriously taken out of commission for weeks prior to 9/11 and regular ground staff refused access?

No? There's a surprise.

Of course, if this daft RC stuff were true it would rip open up a very large - and highly litigious - bag of worms: seeing as American Airlines nearly went bankrupt after 9/11, you'd think they'd be the first in the queue demanding staggering amounts of compensation if they had any suspicions whatsoever that their planes had been 'taken over' by remote control or the government was responsible.

Perhaps some conspiracy fans might explain why those closest to the planes, the pilots and the ground staff haven't lodged any suggestions of remote control units being fitted?

Any ideas? Or can I add the airlines management and ground staff to the ever expanding list of people involved in the conspiracy too?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

both American and United Airlines have ordered Allied Signal's enhanced ground proximity warning system for most of their fleets...

Use of satellite communications, including controller/pilot data link communications and GNSS...

(published in the December 1997 Aerospace America magazine)

http://www.rannoch.com/avionicsviewf.html

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Perhaps some conspiracy fans might explain why those closest to the planes, the pilots and the ground staff haven't lodged any suggestions of remote control units being fitted?

Perhaps you can explain what a computer virus looks like?

 

[WouldBe]

I disagree. There is no reason it should need to be visible, unless it was designed for the pilots to be aware and have control of. And there are enough avionics and aerials and other whatnot on the plane to enable radio, GPS etc. No reason it couldn't use existing aerials etc.

If it's a physical device it has to be visible unless of course there is a holographic projector built into it

If you used the existing radio systems the pilots would be able to hear the data being transmitted and received like you hear when a modem connects to the net. Not only the pilots on the affected plane but also other aircraft in the area and the air traffic controllers and any of the aircraft 'anoraks' that spend their time listening in to aircraft on a VHF / UHF radio. There would be too many witnesses.

 

[editor]

Perhaps you can explain what a computer virus looks like?

What?!

So are you saying that it only took some lines of undetectable code to turn these regular passenger jets into remote control playthings, taking over full control of the plane while disabling all manual controls, communication systems and emergency over-rides?

No extra hardware was needed? No additional communications links? Just install and fly?

Viruses are easily detected, so have you any examples of this incredible software you could show me? And who wrote it? And why isn't it available to airlines now? They'd be queueing up to spend billions on such a marvellous piece of kit...

...And then there's still the thorny problem of those pesky, conspiracy-theory-crushing phone calls from pasengers...

 

[WouldBe]

(published in the December 1997 Aerospace America magazine)

http://www.rannoch.com/avionicsviewf.html

Barometric altimeters can be unreliable especially when flying over long distances due to the large difference in weather conditions en-route. They are also not much use below about 200ft. From the link

To this end, both American and United Airlines have ordered Allied Signal's enhanced ground proximity warning system for most of their fleets.

A ground proximity warning system is a downward facing radar that can give a much more accurate height above ground figure. The article explains these are being fitted to prevent aircaft flying into the ground accidents.

Also

In oceanic airspace, use of TCAS has allowed more efficient intrail climb maneuvers. Use of satellite communications, including controller/pilot data link communications and GNSS, has brought more efficient oceanic routes in the Pacific and Far East regions.

The article explaims that TCAS is a mid air collision avoidance system where the system advises the pilot to climb / turn to avoid another aircraft in the vicinity. A controller/pilot data link could be a simple audio/visual display. It can't really be anything else. You cannot plug a pilot into a data system.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

If you used the existing radio systems the pilots would be able to hear the data being transmitted and received like you hear when a modem connects to the net. Not only the pilots on the affected plane but also other aircraft in the area and the air traffic controllers and any of the aircraft 'anoraks' that spend their time listening in to aircraft on a VHF / UHF radio. There would be too many witnesses.

Wouldbe, you'll have to forgive me, but (dispite your Btec) I really am starting to think that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Can I hear the data when I use VOIP? How about when I pick up the phone that is on the same line as my DSL connection?

 

[WouldBe]

...And then there's still the thorny problem of those pesky, conspiracy-theory-crushing phone calls from pasengers...

That would be the virus getting into the comms system. You know how these things have a habit of raiding your e-mail adress book.

 

[WouldBe]

Wouldbe, you'll have to forgive me, but (dispite your Btec) I really am starting to think that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Can I hear the data when I use VOIP? How about when I pick up the phone that is on the same line as my DSL connection?

And when exactly was broadband technology introduced onto VHF / UHF aircraft radio systems?

What would be the point?

What info is required to be passed back to air traffic control?

It would make the prescence of black boxes completely redundant as instead of storing only the last few minutes of flight data, data for the entire flight could be transmitted continuously back to the ground and stored on computers there. Hell you wouldn't even need to bother looking for the black boxes after a crash you could just search the ground based PC system for the flight / aircraft number and have all the data instantly available.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

When were bi-directional data links first utilised in commercial avionics? I thought you were the expert.

My previous link mentions it (1997) for a start.
Here's a leaflet about it. Some nice colourful graphics so you won't have to bother actually reading it.

I provided the link to the EGPWS stuff as a response to the editors question "have there been any reports of any of these planes being mysteriously taken out of commission for weeks prior to 9/11?"

The answer is yes, there is a report which suggests that most of AA and UA's respective fleets have had upgrades to their systems some time after 1997 when the order was placed. Apologies for not making that clearer.

 

[editor]

The answer is yes, there is a report which suggests that most of AA and UA's respective fleets have had upgrades to their systems some time after 1997 when the order was placed.

Nothing unusual about that. All commercial aircraft undergo upgrades and servicing.

But were these specific planes taken out of service and no others?

If you're saying that the fleet upgrades in 1997 were significant to the 'remote control' theory, I can only assume that you believe that the technology was fitted then - to the entire fleet. So it would be easy for investigators to uncover this system on other planes now.

I don't suppose you have any examples of large passenger planes being converted to remote control by just a few lines of code from 1997 or before, have you?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Editor

I will consider responding to your points when you feel able to offer me assurance that you will desist with your irritating habit of editing your own posts after hitting the 'submit' button.

The fact that your moderator status prevents the usual 'edited by x at x pm' line appearing may be a coincidence, but I am sick to death of replying to your posts only to see that you have altered them whilst I was typing, thus forcing me to retype my own response to avoid looking like a rambling idiot. I'm sure you will plead that you did it within the permitted 'edit time' (as you did last time I pulled you up on it). Perhaps you should take a little more time to think over your response, or perhaps utilise the 'preview post' function.

If you feel unable to offer such an assurance, please state this, as I could always just quote your post in it's entirety - which I'm sure you will agree would be a waste of your bandwidth.

Your call.

 

[editor]

I will consider responding to your points when you feel able to offer me assurance that you will desist with your irritating habit of editing your own posts after hitting the 'submit' button.

The fact that your moderator status prevents the usual 'edited by x at x pm' line appearing may be a coincidence, but I am sick to death of replying to your posts only to see that you have altered them whilst I was typing, thus forcing me to retype my own response to avoid looking like a rambling idiot. .

Err, I edited my post (for clarity) immediately after I posted it. I don't do it very often. It's not a 'habit' and I'm certainly not the only one to quickly amend posts seconds after they've been posted.

My moderator status is absolutely irrelevant in this case and your comments are a complete red herring. Anyone is free to alter their posts within two minutes and no 'edited' message will come up.

So if you've finished whining, will you answer the points please?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Hang on... Have we been here before? Deja Vu?

[From the binned thread: Posted by editor on 18-09-2003 08:24 PM:Were the planes that hit the WTC remote controlled?]

Posted by editor on 27-10-2003 11:43 PM:

quote:Originally posted by bigfish
I'm confused editor, your original reply has been edited to remove your support for an enquiry. Do you support a full public enquiry into the Omagh atrocity or don't you?

Actually, my comments stand but I simply didn't want to sidetrack this thread any further - so I edited my comments within 60 seconds of posting them up.

I thinkyou'll find that LOTS of other people do EXACTLY the same.

-

Posted by editor on 27-10-2003 11:45 PM:

quote:Originally posted by Backatcha Bandit
Editor (or should that be 'EditEr )

I must admit, I find your repeated editing of your own posts quite irritating, as it has happened during the last two responses I have made to you.

I write a response, preview it and notice that your post has changed, thus requiring me to edit my own post, only to preview it and find that yours has changed again!

It's rather confusing, especially as readers are not given any clue that the post has been altered.

I let it go at first, but it seems to have become a common practice.

Maybe I'll just add it to my growing list of things 'I feel uncomforable letting go unchallenged'.

I changed *one* post within 60 seconds of writing it (for the reasons I've now stated) and then went out for the evening, so I've no idea what else it is you're whining about.

And guess what - lots of other posters do EXACTLY the same too. Strange how you're not voicing your 'concern; to them isn't it?

But thanks for jumping in - it's helped me decide that I've had enough of this fucking thread and I'll be binning it shortly.

-

Posted by Backatcha Bandit on 28-10-2003 12:16 AM:

quote:Originally posted by editor
I changed *one* post within 60 seconds of writing it (for the reasons I've now stated) and then went out for the evening, so I've no idea what else it is you're whining about.



No.

You changed TWO on me in the last couple of pages in this thread.

The first you edited TWICE.

It pissed me off but I refrained from calling you on it. Now it transpires that you have done it - quite spectacularly - to Bigfish.

I feel that you are acting more and more like a spoilt child.

Whether you decide to censor or discuss in an adult manner this perception I (and quite probably others) are beginning to form will go some way towards either confirming this perception or helping to dispel it.

It is entirely up to you.

But if you find the opinions of other people on certain subjects too much for you to cope with, I humbly suggest that you refrain from starting threads about them.


Ruby wrote a good piece on 'power' the other day. I think that you should read it.

-

Posted by editor on 28-10-2003 12:46 AM:

quote:Originally posted by Backatcha Bandit
Ruby wrote a good piece on 'power' the other day. I think that you should read it.

Remind me why I should fund this for your benefit?

Are you going to bin this thread, too?

Fuck it. I can tell what you are going to say before you even type it. Little point in reading your output, really. Back on ignore you go.

Just one final point, though, as I hate to see absurd logical fallacies go unchallenged (not that I'll be 'seeing' any of yours from now on, buster/pal/bubba/chum/billyboy):

I don't suppose you have any examples of large passenger planes being converted to remote control by just a few lines of code from 1997 or before, have you?

Obviously a lack of precedent is absolutely no 'proof' of anything.

It's like arguing that Neil Armstrong couldn't possibly have been to the moon because, well, no-one has ever been to the moon before. Computers don't exist because they didn't exist before they were invented. Absolutely absurd logical position, yet one you have repeated and repeated over and over (and, should you require a precedent - over) again.

I come here because I like to read the odds and ends of information, links and general intelligent debate regarding things that I don't know all about - I find it stimulating, filling the gaps in my knowledge and discussing some of the important issues that surround us in this ever more Orwellian world which we all inhabit.

Parsing your insults, ad hominem attacks, sneering, snidey insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'tinfoil hatter' or 'conspiracy theorist', half-arsed looney toon straw man constructions and lame attempts at rhetorical questions, followed by more lame attempts at rhetorical questions, followed by endless repetitions of the same lame attempts at rhetorical questions off my screen isn't going to effect that in the slightest.


(Cue a queue of sychophants and irrelevant images posted by JC2).

Don't forget to remind me how much hard work you and the mods yada yada yada.... for my benefit...blah blah... if I don't like it I can set up my own board... wibble wibble.....