Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
yeah well quite franky you deserve them. How many times have you repeated your nonsensical objection about a supposed practise flight over Long Island? Must be getting on for about thirty times. Practically every single post you make has been addressed by me before but you just carry on like a stuck record.
It is simply not possible to have any kind of meaningful debate with you and you are as much fun on these threads as a sack full of stones.
It is simply not possible to have any kind of meaningful debate with you and you are as much fun on these threads as a sack full of stones.
editor said:
I've got an open mind about these sightings which in any case are not central or indeed crucial to Dewdney's hypothesis. I understand and sympathize that some people may want to keep their identities private from the prying media, especially one that will go to any lengths to discredit the opponents of the official version...
I don't recall Dewdney claiming the planes were near invisible though... is that something you've added yourself? If it is then what about the TOTAL invisibility of all the 'hijackers' at all 3 busy international airports... care to answer me that question now that I've answered your?
editor
hiraethified
They'd have to be near invisible if only two people out of a population the size of Greater Manchester managed to notice two large aircraft flying "amazingly low" and "amazingly slow" in an illegal and highly dangerous formation.bigfish said:
In the rush hour.
Oh, and I can play the 'avoid expressing an opinion game" too and say that I've got an "open mind" about how the hijackers got on the planes.
But if it wasn't the hijackers on the panes - who were the passengers talking about in the phone calls?
(edited for appalling spelling)
Care to answer the question about the TOTALLY invisible 'hijackers' at all 3 busy international airports?
At least with the 2 aicraft in one location we've got 2 sightings albeit annonimous ones. In the case of the NINETEEN 'hijackers' at THREE locations we have precisely ZERO sightings.
Any idea why that might be? Were all the airports completely empty of travellers and ground staff that day?
At least with the 2 aicraft in one location we've got 2 sightings albeit annonimous ones. In the case of the NINETEEN 'hijackers' at THREE locations we have precisely ZERO sightings.
Any idea why that might be? Were all the airports completely empty of travellers and ground staff that day?
think of all the sport you'd be fucked over on...
editor
hiraethified
I'll tell you straight. I'm getting fucking pissed off with your yapping along like a little puppy dog every time one of your conspiracy pals has a go at me.fela fan said:
Unless you've got something vaguely useful and on-topic to add to the thread, shut the fuck up. I've had enough of the personal insults today.
editor
hiraethified
With your tenuous grip on reality, it's not surprising that you're drawn to conspiracy fantasies.fela fan said:
The title of this thread concerns 'remote control aircraft'.
And here's your last list of irrelevant, off topic and quite useless 'contributions':
What a dreamer. And a hypocrite too.
remote control software
The discussion about how the software works is an interesting one, but more importantly than how the remote functions would be the time it takes to install such systems. It takes 90 minutes to install the software for the screens alone. The system would have to be installed before take off. How long would this take?
And would this be considered standard procedure and standard software by the pilot? German pilots were anxious enough to refuse automatic piloting systems, sensing the danger of being subject to outside control against the wishes of the pilot (see link). Could you install this software as a matter of course?
On a slightly different tack but very much connected, just before 9/11 Mohammed Atta was paid $100,000 by the chief of the Pakistani ISI , who also, incidentally, was having breakfast with Tenet on the morning of 9/11. This doesn't sound like a guy who was renouncing worldly pleasures, where's he gonna spend this? Atta also had a good night out with his friends drinking whisky -his very last night on earth- so it is claimed. He certainly liked girls without net curtains on their heads. Some religious fanatic he wasn't, then. So the likelihood of suicide bombers is significantly decreased and the likelihood of remote control, albeit by our band of Middle Eastern-looking gentlemen, is significantly increased by this little publicised fact. To claim invisible hijackers boarded those planes to commit middle eastern hari-kari is quite a claim, unless of course you reinforce it with finding Atta's passport on a pile of rubble two blocks down from ground zedo. Joke.
You certainly have to give it to those guys over in the Hollywood Scriptwriting Dept,
"Guys! This story is really gonna bowl that audience over, they'll suck this one down!"
And we did.
So remote controlled aircraft were used. Tidier.
check it out:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175
The discussion about how the software works is an interesting one, but more importantly than how the remote functions would be the time it takes to install such systems. It takes 90 minutes to install the software for the screens alone. The system would have to be installed before take off. How long would this take?
And would this be considered standard procedure and standard software by the pilot? German pilots were anxious enough to refuse automatic piloting systems, sensing the danger of being subject to outside control against the wishes of the pilot (see link). Could you install this software as a matter of course?
On a slightly different tack but very much connected, just before 9/11 Mohammed Atta was paid $100,000 by the chief of the Pakistani ISI , who also, incidentally, was having breakfast with Tenet on the morning of 9/11. This doesn't sound like a guy who was renouncing worldly pleasures, where's he gonna spend this? Atta also had a good night out with his friends drinking whisky -his very last night on earth- so it is claimed. He certainly liked girls without net curtains on their heads. Some religious fanatic he wasn't, then. So the likelihood of suicide bombers is significantly decreased and the likelihood of remote control, albeit by our band of Middle Eastern-looking gentlemen, is significantly increased by this little publicised fact. To claim invisible hijackers boarded those planes to commit middle eastern hari-kari is quite a claim, unless of course you reinforce it with finding Atta's passport on a pile of rubble two blocks down from ground zedo. Joke.
You certainly have to give it to those guys over in the Hollywood Scriptwriting Dept,
"Guys! This story is really gonna bowl that audience over, they'll suck this one down!"
And we did.
So remote controlled aircraft were used. Tidier.
check it out:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175
oh yeah?
I was not aware I was off topic. Were you not discussing software and remote control on piloting commercial jets as the title of this thread suggests?
Whassamadder, got a problem? The subject of the website is a signature. You want to talk about it?
WouldBe said:
I was not aware I was off topic. Were you not discussing software and remote control on piloting commercial jets as the title of this thread suggests?
Whassamadder, got a problem? The subject of the website is a signature. You want to talk about it?
except clever old me?
I finished my posting with "And we did". Another one with a severe problem on this board. I shall not reply here to the "phone call" request as I was sharply told to keep on subject from WouldBe.
I was requested to come on this forum, and have so far refrained to see what kind of people you are. Surely you ought to welcome others to your forum rather than slap them in the face? Parts of the discussion here look like the juvenile antics of those who do not want serious discussion.
So what's it going to be? Acknowledge that 9/11 has generated hundreds if not thousands of websites questioning the current story, or claim I think I am the only person in the entire world who has seen through the story. Once we clear this up, perhaps we can start a thread on phone calls.
Meanwhile I am not prepared to waste time writing in a forum where basic courtesy is lampooned. ¿okay?
editor said:
I finished my posting with "And we did". Another one with a severe problem on this board. I shall not reply here to the "phone call" request as I was sharply told to keep on subject from WouldBe.
I was requested to come on this forum, and have so far refrained to see what kind of people you are. Surely you ought to welcome others to your forum rather than slap them in the face? Parts of the discussion here look like the juvenile antics of those who do not want serious discussion.
So what's it going to be? Acknowledge that 9/11 has generated hundreds if not thousands of websites questioning the current story, or claim I think I am the only person in the entire world who has seen through the story. Once we clear this up, perhaps we can start a thread on phone calls.
Meanwhile I am not prepared to waste time writing in a forum where basic courtesy is lampooned. ¿okay?
editor
hiraethified
Who 'requested' your presence here? Not me, that's for sure.RosaDeLuxe said:
That's fine by me.RosaDeLuxe said:
Goodbye!
PS Tip for the future: it's usually considered good manners to lurk before posting. That way you can ascertain if the topic has already been discussed to death (it has) and find out if the forum is right for you.
You clearly couldn't be arsed to do that, hence your bleating.
Oh well. I'm sure you'll be able to find another, more appropriate bulletin board from all the 'thousands' of 9/11 conspiracy websites.
Be sure to post up the address as there's a few others here who don't like answering tricky questions too. Maybe you could 'request' that they join you there because I'm fed up reading the same bollocks week in, week out.
remote control
Thanks for replying WouldBe. Yes, the website deals with La Vanguardia articles (the newsprint), but it also deals with override in section
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html
and the fact that it is the wrong plane:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
and the flight control systems again:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
quote: " 1. Comparing the profile of the Boeing that slammed into the South Tower with a 767-200, it seems that this was not the same plane that left Logan airport that fateful morning. It was switched. And if the plane was switched, then the "pilots" were switched too.
2. To judge by the strange manoeuvres before it hit, the flight computers must have been tampered with.
3. The plane banked sharply into the South Tower because it was about to miss it, even the best of pilots would have had a job hitting such a small target at 500 m.p.h.-- even an "experienced" pilot like Mr Bush needed help landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Forget mucking about on a Cessna for a few hours. Autopilot and a beacon would have done the job, but then it would have gone straight in like a rudimentary guided missile.
Was this more than simple tampering with the flight computers? Could this "unidentified" plane have been controlled remotely from the ground? Is the "taking over of distressed aircraft and landing them" not a distant fantasy? "
The subject of this thread is dealt with in detail on the site. Perhaps I should have been more accurate in pasting the exact address, sorry.
Anyhow, my question is how long would it take to install the software to run remote control technology of any kind? It goes without saying that the "hijacker" story is thus rejected here and we are looking at a group of individuals who planned this beforehand. None of these individuals would be prepared to commit suicide to bomb these buildings.
WouldBe said:We were discussing software and R/C on this thread. However the link you posted up refers to the 'odd bumps' page of that website. And as I pointed out this has already been discussed and dismissed on another thread.
Thanks for replying WouldBe. Yes, the website deals with La Vanguardia articles (the newsprint), but it also deals with override in section
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/first.html
and the fact that it is the wrong plane:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
and the flight control systems again:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html
quote: " 1. Comparing the profile of the Boeing that slammed into the South Tower with a 767-200, it seems that this was not the same plane that left Logan airport that fateful morning. It was switched. And if the plane was switched, then the "pilots" were switched too.
2. To judge by the strange manoeuvres before it hit, the flight computers must have been tampered with.
3. The plane banked sharply into the South Tower because it was about to miss it, even the best of pilots would have had a job hitting such a small target at 500 m.p.h.-- even an "experienced" pilot like Mr Bush needed help landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Forget mucking about on a Cessna for a few hours. Autopilot and a beacon would have done the job, but then it would have gone straight in like a rudimentary guided missile.
Was this more than simple tampering with the flight computers? Could this "unidentified" plane have been controlled remotely from the ground? Is the "taking over of distressed aircraft and landing them" not a distant fantasy? "
The subject of this thread is dealt with in detail on the site. Perhaps I should have been more accurate in pasting the exact address, sorry.
Anyhow, my question is how long would it take to install the software to run remote control technology of any kind? It goes without saying that the "hijacker" story is thus rejected here and we are looking at a group of individuals who planned this beforehand. None of these individuals would be prepared to commit suicide to bomb these buildings.
Hi editor!
No, not you, you ass! Of course not! But I was requested to come on to this board two months ago.
No, I think I'll stay now, since it annoys you!
"It is usually good manners blah blah. How do you know suddenly about good manners? How would you know? You are Sooooooo clever!!! And the rest of us are stooooopid - right? Clairvoyant now are we???
As for bleating sweetie pie you appear to have arisen this morning with a true sheeple, suck-down-any-old-crap, chip on your shoulder this bright morning. Lucky you don't go to my pub, you'd get nutted and gutted swifter than you can say "I'm the mediocre moderator of a forum for the hopelessly retarded" ....
Yes, ducky. There's a war going on.
You can READ? My, AND you can spell bollocks? Pretty shit hot! Keep up the good work! I would be totally depressed if I lived in your state of apparent anger. Might try shooting yourself.
editor said:
No, not you, you ass! Of course not! But I was requested to come on to this board two months ago.
editor said:
No, I think I'll stay now, since it annoys you!
editor said:
"It is usually good manners blah blah. How do you know suddenly about good manners? How would you know? You are Sooooooo clever!!! And the rest of us are stooooopid - right? Clairvoyant now are we???
editor said:
As for bleating sweetie pie you appear to have arisen this morning with a true sheeple, suck-down-any-old-crap, chip on your shoulder this bright morning. Lucky you don't go to my pub, you'd get nutted and gutted swifter than you can say "I'm the mediocre moderator of a forum for the hopelessly retarded" ....
editor said:
Yes, ducky. There's a war going on.
editor said:
You can READ? My, AND you can spell bollocks? Pretty shit hot! Keep up the good work! I would be totally depressed if I lived in your state of apparent anger. Might try shooting yourself.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
RosaDeLuxe said:
The article states that perspective is a funny thing. Flight 175 is turning sharply to hit the WTC therefore the nose of the aircraft is further away from the observer than the tail so therefore you cant simply compare a 90 degree on drawing with a blurred photo of a plane flying at an angle. Also the WTC had a lot of glass in the walls. As the aircraft is so close to the WTC it's difficult to tell where the plane ends and the reflection starts.
Links have already been provided to a site where experienced commercial and millitary pilots discussed flight 77 in particular. One of the experienced commercial pilots said that if he was hijacked 'he would flip the plane upside down and break the hijackers neck'. If this manouver is possible then the turn made by flight 175 is also possible.
I have not found any details yet regarding any limits on manouverability but am still looking.
The WTC was 206 ft wide. The cockpit of the 767 was 16 ft wide and the wingspan 156 ft. From a link provided earlier the min runway width for a 757 is 32m or about 96ft so it would be quite easy to hit the WTC.
Q. Could this "unidentified" plane have been controlled remotely from the ground?
A. Yes but I doubt it with the installed equipment.
Q. Is the "taking over of distressed aircraft and landing them" not a distant fantasy? "
A. No it's not but again not with the installed equipment.
Q. how long would it take to install the software to run remote control technology of any kind?
A. You have already stated 90 mins for the displays. Then you would have to load special software into the flight computers. Instal secure hardware to receive the signals from the ground, which would require modifying the wiring systems and installation of a new aerial. Then you would have to do test flights to make sure it worked.
Similar threads
- Locked
