http://www.physorg.com/news66197469.html
The one that hit the pentagon- let"s not forget that one- ever.
No human remains- hole much smaller than a jet.. etc. that was our first terrorist use of an unmanned drone- too bad the terrorist was our own president ultimately.
remove the annoying intellitxt
it is crap
a button is available to disable it on your web page if you still want the revenue
it is crap
a button is available to disable it on your web page if you still want the revenue
What a load of scare tactic rubbish. Yes we're all scared of paragliders, OMFG their so leathal. most of the R/C planes spoken of are only just capable of carrying a small cmos camera, i'd like to see them take off with anything remotely as leathal as can be carried in a truck or car. You could do more damage with a brick. And can the US reports please stop refering to Bruce Simpson's 'dangerous contraption', cruise missile for every example of a low cost cruise missile, none of his work was even proven to fly, let alone navigate to anything useful. The only danger was to himself when he'd light his fuel to noise converter (pulse jet). Are you seriously trying to convince us that noone has developed a counter measure to a missile used by germany 70 years ago? v1? no takers? oh well lets just scare people into thinking that insects are going to bomb us then aye. beware the tactical fly nuke, or maybe its impregnated with super aids or bird flu...
It's impossible to fly a 757 remotely and there are pictures of human remains. Stop the nonsense.
WARNING - DO NOT VIEW IF WEAK STOMACH - ***********************
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg
********************************************************
Evidence http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc
* numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon
* phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked
* eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts
* the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77
* acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried out the September 11 attacks.
In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-28-06/...ion.cgi.84.html
QUOTE
Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:
* Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
* Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
* Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
* James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
* Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
* Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
* Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
* Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
* Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
* Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
* Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
* William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
* Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
* Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
* Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
* Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
* Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
* Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
* Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
* John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
* Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
* James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
* Joel Sucherman:
WARNING - DO NOT VIEW IF WEAK STOMACH - ***********************
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200048-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200045-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/P200047-1.jpg
********************************************************
Evidence http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc
* numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon
* phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked
* eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts
* the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77
* acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried out the September 11 attacks.
In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/02-28-06/...ion.cgi.84.html
QUOTE
Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:
* Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
* Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
* Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
* James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
* Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
* Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
* Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
* Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
* Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
* Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
* Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
* William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
* Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
* Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
* Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
* Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
* Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
* Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
* Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
* John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
* Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
* James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
* Joel Sucherman:
Well all the FBI has to do to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon is release the many surveillance tapes showing as such.
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!
Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!
Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.
oh excellent rebuttal, I will call the FBI to immediately address your concerns, but first, how about addressing the preceeding post hmmm?
QUOTE (Suiting+May 9 2006, 05:51 AM)
Well all the FBI has to do to convince me that a plane hit the Pentagon is release the many surveillance tapes showing as such.
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!
Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.
Your statement is illogical. It discounts overwhelming tangible evidence in favor of completely unsupported theories:
Many eyewitnesses, whom see commercial jetliners everyday, saw an American Airlines 757 passenger jet fly over their heads and crash right into the pentagon - DNA match passengers - Black box found - oh wait, there is no video proof - so it must be a missile or remote controlled plane and all those people did not see what they saw.
Where is your proof? No video proof is proof?
Why would anyone want to release successful hit video for the terrorists to have as a trophy and recruitment video? Think about it. The WTC could not be helped, it was live as news crews had cameras running. I watched the second plane crash into the second tower live. Tell you what, it was a passenger jet. I see them every single day where I live. I live near an airport and trust me, there is no mistaking something that large
Have you ever seen a beer bottle blow out it's bottom by smacking the top with your palm? What you see blow out the windows below is compression blasts from the floors above collapsing - possibly igniting vaporized fuel as well.
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!
Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.
Your statement is illogical. It discounts overwhelming tangible evidence in favor of completely unsupported theories:
Many eyewitnesses, whom see commercial jetliners everyday, saw an American Airlines 757 passenger jet fly over their heads and crash right into the pentagon - DNA match passengers - Black box found - oh wait, there is no video proof - so it must be a missile or remote controlled plane and all those people did not see what they saw.
Where is your proof? No video proof is proof?
Why would anyone want to release successful hit video for the terrorists to have as a trophy and recruitment video? Think about it. The WTC could not be helped, it was live as news crews had cameras running. I watched the second plane crash into the second tower live. Tell you what, it was a passenger jet. I see them every single day where I live. I live near an airport and trust me, there is no mistaking something that large
Have you ever seen a beer bottle blow out it's bottom by smacking the top with your palm? What you see blow out the windows below is compression blasts from the floors above collapsing - possibly igniting vaporized fuel as well.
QUOTE
You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide!
Indeed like what? hmmm possibly classified inner workings of the Pentagon? or operatives being prepped for deep cover missions that we don't want seen?naw nothing top-secret EVER happens there right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You must admit that their failure to provide these tapes shows they have something to hide! |
Indeed like what? hmmm possibly classified inner workings of the Pentagon? or operatives being prepped for deep cover missions that we don't want seen?naw nothing top-secret EVER happens there right?
Terrorists may have flown those other planes into the towers but who set off the controlled demolition of such.
I didn't see much controlled demolition, you know i think that hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel in a stone chimney + whatever else was in there might have done that(any finely powdered/vaporised flammable substance suspended in air is terribly explosive don't think so? ask a farmer why they don't smoke near grain processors/storage) also I've welded and i know steel can burn i wish the "secret plot in our government" nuts wold learn that.
QUOTE (AnExpertLOL+May 9 2006, 04:42 AM)
What a load of scare tactic rubbish. Yes we're all scared of paragliders, OMFG their so leathal. most of the R/C planes spoken of are only just capable of carrying a small cmos camera, i'd like to see them take off with anything remotely as leathal as can be carried in a truck or car. You could do more damage with a brick. And can the US reports please stop refering to Bruce Simpson's 'dangerous contraption', cruise missile for every example of a low cost cruise missile, none of his work was even proven to fly, let alone navigate to anything useful. The only danger was to himself when he'd light his fuel to noise converter (pulse jet). Are you seriously trying to convince us that noone has developed a counter measure to a missile used by germany 70 years ago? v1? no takers? oh well lets just scare people into thinking that insects are going to bomb us then aye. beware the tactical fly nuke, or maybe its impregnated with super aids or bird flu...
that may be but that helicopter is far from being a typical R/C plane. A 256 cc engine is a big motor. I had a dirt bike that was 250cc, and it's a powerful motor. (and a 450cc)
that may be but that helicopter is far from being a typical R/C plane. A 256 cc engine is a big motor. I had a dirt bike that was 250cc, and it's a powerful motor. (and a 450cc)
QUOTE
Japanese company Yamaha, meanwhile, has produced 95-kilogram (209-pound) robot helicopter that is 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) long and has a 256 cc engine.
whether flight 77 really hit the pentagon does not matter.
what matters is how ANY large air vehicle was allowed to cruise around some of the most heavily guarded airspace on the planet for over an hour. the very idea is preposterous.
what matters is how ANY large air vehicle was allowed to cruise around some of the most heavily guarded airspace on the planet for over an hour. the very idea is preposterous.
QUOTE (flechet+May 9 2006, 06:42 AM)
I didn't see much controlled demolition, you know i think that hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel in a stone chimney + whatever else was in there might have done that(any finely powdered/vaporised flammable substance suspended in air is terribly explosive don't think so? ask a farmer why they don't smoke near grain processors/storage) also I've welded and i know steel can burn i wish the "secret plot in our government" nuts wold learn that.
silly rabbit .. nothing BUT controlled demolition can explain the free fall of the towers.
your fisher-price-branded welding 'experience' is irrelevant -- YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.
the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
silly rabbit .. nothing BUT controlled demolition can explain the free fall of the towers.
your fisher-price-branded welding 'experience' is irrelevant -- YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.
the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
QUOTE (Guest_anon+May 9 2006, 01:50 PM)
the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
Name some other skyscrapers that have been impacted by 757 commercial airliner that remain standing.
QUOTE
these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.
the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
steel rated to 1500 c, and it was designed to handle the impact of a lightly fuel laden Boeing 707 traveling slowly at landing approach speed.
The only sky scraper I know of to actually survive a plane crash, is the Empire State building which was hit by a B-25 in heavy fog.
I wonder how, with your vast education and experience in this matter, you can conclude exactly the opposite of every notable engineer on the subject, and that just by viewing video. Your talents are nothing short of astounding.
QUOTE (Guest_anon+May 9 2006, 09:50 AM)
QUOTE (flechet+May 9 2006, 06:42 AM)
I didn't see much controlled demolition, you know i think that hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel in a stone chimney + whatever else was in there might have done that(any finely powdered/vaporised flammable substance suspended in air is terribly explosive don't think so? ask a farmer why they don't smoke near grain processors/storage) also I've welded and i know steel can burn i wish the "secret plot in our government" nuts wold learn that.
silly rabbit .. nothing BUT controlled demolition can explain the free fall of the towers.
your fisher-price-branded welding 'experience' is irrelevant -- YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.
the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
MORON,
No one thinks the Fuel fire caused the collapse.
What it DID do was ignite the TONS of office material across many floors.
That and the damage done by the collision, including disloging the critical sprayed on steel insulation caused the collapse.
You can read ALL ABOUT it in the NIST report.
Or you can show up on forums like this and wave your hands around.
Arthur
ps there's an 800 page thread in General Physics that deals with ALL these issues, no reason to start another one.
How about this then..........
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
silly rabbit .. nothing BUT controlled demolition can explain the free fall of the towers.
your fisher-price-branded welding 'experience' is irrelevant -- YOU ARE IN DENIAL.
these were MASSIVE structures, built from the steel rated to 2500ºC, and overengineered to withstand all sorts of disasters, including specifically the possibility of an airplane crash. look it up. kerosene (a.k.a. jet fuel) burns at around 1500ºC. and it burns instantly, producing a brief blaze that cannot really sustain any larger fire unless more fuel is furnished.
the three skyscrapers that collapsed on 9/11 remain the only skyscrapers in history ever to do so. EVER. controllled demolition is the only way to explain these events, once you have taken an honest look at the video evidence.
MORON,
No one thinks the Fuel fire caused the collapse.
What it DID do was ignite the TONS of office material across many floors.
That and the damage done by the collision, including disloging the critical sprayed on steel insulation caused the collapse.
You can read ALL ABOUT it in the NIST report.
Or you can show up on forums like this and wave your hands around.
Arthur
ps there's an 800 page thread in General Physics that deals with ALL these issues, no reason to start another one.
As early as World War I., this type of technology proved workable with the Kettering Bug. It was used to some effect against the Japanese in the Pacific during the Solomon Campaigns, when the Navy crashed twin engine drones laden with high explosives into the Japanese unloading cranes on those islands.
Yes we should be concerned, its very easy to do, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to achieve results.
Yes we should be concerned, its very easy to do, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to achieve results.
QUOTE (Clarence Darrow+May 9 2006, 11:43 PM)
Yes we should be concerned, its very easy to do, and doesn't take a rocket scientist to achieve results.
Its NOT very easy to do to a COMMERCIAL JET and not have it DETECTED by a WHOLE bunch of mechanics.
Arthur
Its NOT very easy to do to a COMMERCIAL JET and not have it DETECTED by a WHOLE bunch of mechanics.
Arthur
All You need is a MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) or just a 12.ga
shot gun with heavy loads to take this thing out. The heli is easy to take out, all you have to do is nick a blade and it becomes unstable and will likely crash on it own. RC Heil pilot will tell you the same.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
shot gun with heavy loads to take this thing out. The heli is easy to take out, all you have to do is nick a blade and it becomes unstable and will likely crash on it own. RC Heil pilot will tell you the same.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
QUOTE (Csbad+May 15 2006, 05:09 AM)
All You need is a MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) or just a 12.ga
shot gun with heavy loads to take this thing out. The heli is easy to take out, all you have to do is nick a blade and it becomes unstable and will likely crash on it own. RC Heil pilot will tell you the same.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
A Helo is not as easy as to being down as you think.. nicking a main rotor, or even a tail rotor wont do it.. they can take a load of damage and still fly.. especially the older slick who's main rotors spun at a much slower then the new Blackhawks..
There have been more than a few times when several FEET of main rotor has been shot away, and it returned home.. the airframe was shaken to pieces by the time it arrived back on the tarmac.. but it flew back with grunts on board.. The pilot will put a full lift on the mains, and slow the speed on them as much as possible.. pray to keep flying, pray to be able to land, then pray he can quickly change his pants after landing.
Russia builds one Helo in their Mi series that is dubbed "the flying tank".. stingers wont even bring it down, unless it is stuck in the main rotor head..
There are more than a few Helos that can take far more abuse than you ever dreamed possible, ask any rotorhead.. RC is not real life.
shot gun with heavy loads to take this thing out. The heli is easy to take out, all you have to do is nick a blade and it becomes unstable and will likely crash on it own. RC Heil pilot will tell you the same.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
A Helo is not as easy as to being down as you think.. nicking a main rotor, or even a tail rotor wont do it.. they can take a load of damage and still fly.. especially the older slick who's main rotors spun at a much slower then the new Blackhawks..
There have been more than a few times when several FEET of main rotor has been shot away, and it returned home.. the airframe was shaken to pieces by the time it arrived back on the tarmac.. but it flew back with grunts on board.. The pilot will put a full lift on the mains, and slow the speed on them as much as possible.. pray to keep flying, pray to be able to land, then pray he can quickly change his pants after landing.
Russia builds one Helo in their Mi series that is dubbed "the flying tank".. stingers wont even bring it down, unless it is stuck in the main rotor head..
There are more than a few Helos that can take far more abuse than you ever dreamed possible, ask any rotorhead.. RC is not real life.
Archer,
I think he was referring to the robotic helo's mentioned in the initial post.
Arthur
I think he was referring to the robotic helo's mentioned in the initial post.
QUOTE
Japanese company Yamaha, meanwhile, has produced 95-kilogram (209-pound) robot helicopter that is 3.6 metres (11.8 feet) long and has a 256 cc engine.
It flies close to the ground at about 20 kilometres per hour (12 miles per hour), nothing but an incredible stroke of luck could stop it if it suddenly appeared in the sky above the White House -- and it is already on the market.
It flies close to the ground at about 20 kilometres per hour (12 miles per hour), nothing but an incredible stroke of luck could stop it if it suddenly appeared in the sky above the White House -- and it is already on the market.
Arthur
A little tangent:
Normally, I'm very anti-conspiracy, but the question of where the wings are bugs me a little. If a plane was flying low and parallel with the ground, the wings would shear off and leave remnants outside the building. Even airliners that crash on take off still full of fuel still leave airframe pieces in large visible chunks
Anyways, it's neither proof or disproof, but it is provocative.
Pentagon 9-11 strike viditorial
Normally, I'm very anti-conspiracy, but the question of where the wings are bugs me a little. If a plane was flying low and parallel with the ground, the wings would shear off and leave remnants outside the building. Even airliners that crash on take off still full of fuel still leave airframe pieces in large visible chunks
Anyways, it's neither proof or disproof, but it is provocative.
Pentagon 9-11 strike viditorial
A jet Aircraft at takeoff (or landing) is going a little more than 100 mph. The jet that hit the pentagon was near 500 mph. This is many times the kinetic energy of your typical crash. The DIFFERENCE in the kinetic force is what caused the aircraft to both penetrate the building but also shatter into much smaller pieces.
Arthur
Arthur
Here comes Arthur again with his modern, very logical, science-based, open-minded views of what happened in the Pentagon.
Anyway, I agree with Digital monk.
Anyway, I agree with Digital monk.
Remote controlled vehicles are vulnerable to standard Electronic Counter-Measures. The real danger is in independent vehicles, like the big robot car contest in SoCal the last couple years. Once you have a vehicle that can guide itself, it becomes much more difficult to defend against.
How about this then..........
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
QUOTE (amadaun+May 29 2006, 05:05 PM)
How about this then..........
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
Don't you just LOVE people who post something like this without checking to see if ANY of it is TRUE?
FALSE - A PILOT can use the system to fly from point to point, but the plane can not taxi to a runway and take-off on its own, nor can it land on its own.
FALSE - A PILOT can use the system to fly from point to point, but the plane can not taxi to a runway and take-off on its own, nor can it land on its own.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury
FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of bouncing passengers all over the cabin.
FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of pullling high gs
FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of pullling high gs
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
FALSE (there is NO FEATURE to override)
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
I'll take that question, if you don't mind.
First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID). Here is the info (including movies) on that experiment. It was the first remote controlled flight of a commercial aircraft that I am aware of. Regardless of the freshmen attempt at controlled flight, this set the footwork for future remote controlled aircraft flights.
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver
Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
757-200 Background - Flight Deck
As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?
Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise?
EDIT-
Amadaun,
I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:
Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
All you 911 Conspiracy hacks are *** retards. You really PISS ME OFF. How many people have to die and suffer horrible agonizing deaths before you accept the fact that OSAMA BIN LADEN is responsible for these atrocities. No American military or Government could be responsible for this and you all ASSHOLES for suggesting such a thing.
Please STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS by spreading their PROPAGANDA.
GROW UP AND WISE UP OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED including you conspiracy retards.
All you 911 Conspiracy hacks are *** retards. You really PISS ME OFF. How many people have to die and suffer horrible agonizing deaths before you accept the fact that OSAMA BIN LADEN is responsible for these atrocities. No American military or Government could be responsible for this and you all ASSHOLES for suggesting such a thing.
Please STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS by spreading their PROPAGANDA.
GROW UP AND WISE UP OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED including you conspiracy retards.
Show me one shred of CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Nowhere does it mention that OBL is wanted with regard to the 9/11 attacks. Prove otherwise. The federal government cannot do so and neither can you. You rely solely on unsubstantiated heresay that you hear, read and see in the mainstream media.
You should be upset about the death of nearly 3000 people here in the US as a result of the attacks. However, you should direct your anger at those who committed the atrocities and not rely on a propaganda campaign devised by the White House and promulgated by the mainstream media. There IS one way that can help to prove who committed the 9/11 attacks though- ask federal law enforcement to release all evidence pertaining to these events on 9/11.
Be upset. Be VERY upset. Be upset that the US government lied about the air quality at Ground Zero in the EPA air quality report in part to get the stock market back up and running at the expense of many more innocent lives. There are and will be many more deaths attributed to the WTC collapses in the form of lung cancers and resiratory diseases from airborne asbestos, heavy metals and other harmful inhaled particles. If the US government didn't commit the atrocities, they certainly added to the fatality rates by lying about the air quality there weeks after the attacks. THAT my friend, IS a government conspiracy. Don't shoot the messenger, Ed Wood.
While you're at it, why don't you show us conclusive proof that AIDS is caused by HIV? It's another common misconception that somehow gets accepted because we are innundated with such a false claim. You won't find any proof of HIV causing AIDS anywhere either. Do you know why? It's because it's an unsubstantiated claim that has no backing proof like Al Qaeda did 9/11. Research this for months and you still will not find a source of the claim, much less any actual proff of such a claim as credible. CDC, WHO, experts in the field, etc... No one has proof yet they just accept it at face value. This is the case with the 9/11 attacks too. The deeper you delve, the more inconsistancies and false attributes you will find in the official and accepted version of the story. Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. You will learn a lot about heresay and facts.
Show me one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:
You mean like in the last tape Osama Douchbag Bin Laden sent to AL Al Jazeera where he CLAIMS He Hand picked the 19 hijackers?
Osama Claims responsibility for the attacks on 911
Or how about this one?
Osama claims responsibility
Why do you hate my country so much?
The
PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT Osama Bin Laden is a Manipulative PU$$Y *** that persuades simpleminded retards like the 19 hijackers that he Personally Selected for the 911 Mission and yourself Barkley to do his bidding.
Please stop spreading his propaganda.
Unless you really do hate My country the United States Of America then by all means feel free to be an Osama Bin Laden douchbag Lackey, but at least have the Balls ADMIT you HATE the United States Of America and that is why you are doing so.
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
I'll take that question, if you don't mind.
First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver
Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
757-200 Background - Flight Deck
As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?
Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise?
EDIT-
Amadaun,
I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:
Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).
But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.
Well Duh.
Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.
Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.
The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.
Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.
So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.
For this to work on 9/11, the planes would have had to been equipped and the GROUND STATION would have had to be installed in the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
And as to all that BS about G limits:
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."
Why the long winded answer, since he didn't DISPUTE one of my claims. Because AFTER he posts things which PROVE every one of my claims was in fact correct he joins the standard CT'er brigade:
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
I'll take that question, if you don't mind.
First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver
Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
757-200 Background - Flight Deck
As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?
Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise?
EDIT-
Amadaun,
I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:
Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).
But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.
Well Duh.
Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.
Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.
The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.
Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.
So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.
For this to work on 9/11, the planes would have had to been equipped and the GROUND STATION would have had to be installed in the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
And as to all that BS about G limits:
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."
Why the long winded answer, since he didn't DISPUTE one of my claims. Because AFTER he posts things which PROVE every one of my claims was in fact correct he joins the standard CT'er brigade:
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise
Almost anything IS POSSIBLE but that is not the same as saying its likely or in this case that you have a SHRED of EVIDENCE that it happened.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering WHY the pervasive lies about the REMOTE CONTROL TAKEOFF CAPABILITY, that's because if you can't takeoff you still need pilots willing to commit suicide. If that's the case then you don't need REMOTE CONTROL. And of course, having suicidal pilots on board leads you right back to Atta and company.
Which is the POINT of all his BS, to convince people that Atta and company didn't do it.
Arthur
Show me one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:
You mean like in the last tape Osama Douchbag Bin Laden sent to AL Al Jazeera where he CLAIMS He Hand picked the 19 hijackers?
Osama Claims responsibility for the attacks on 911
Or how about this one?
Osama claims responsibility
Why do you hate my country so much?
The
PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT Osama Bin Laden is a Manipulative PU$$Y *** that persuades simpleminded retards like the 19 hijackers that he Personally Selected for the 911 Mission and yourself Barkley to do his bidding.
Please stop spreading his propaganda.
Unless you really do hate My country the United States Of America then by all means feel free to be an Osama Bin Laden douchbag Lackey, but at least have the Balls ADMIT you HATE the United States Of America and that is why you are doing so.
It is painfully obvious that you have no interest in any sort of discussion. Instead, you seek only to vent. That's fine but you lack credibility if you think that people should just blindly accept such heresay.
Your country? Since when do you have the right to lay sole claim to OUR nation? The US is my country too and I choose to question such events because I love my country dearly and do not want to see this system of government changed into an authoritarian dictatorship. You know absolutely nothing of me or my qualifications in any matters of state. What sacrifices have YOU made in the effort to promote the continuation of our way of life and system of government?
This grand experiment of a democratic republic has lasted only 219 years so far and contrary to what many people believe, it is frail and needs constant attention to see that it continues to exist and to pass it along to our children in a healthy state. In terms of time, it is a mere drop in the bucket. By comparison, the Roman and Greek empires lasted over a millenia while the Ottoman empire lasted for over 600 years. The danger to our form of government does not come from the outside, Ed Wood. It resides within. When our own citizens become lazy and stop being vigilant of their government, they are apt to lose it to those who would take advantage of our inattention.
You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not. You want your pound of flesh in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks yet you have no conclusive proof as to who actually committed such atrocities and no one here on this forum does either. You are young. It is apparent in your emotional outbursts. You speak without the benefit of forethought and that is exactly the type of mob rule mentality that leads to suppression of civil rights and the rise of an authoritarian state. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell sometime. Perhaps you'll see the parallel here. Here's a clue: Snowball didn't do it.
Interesting claim, that if we don't agree with you that we are choosing to "relinquish liberties".
But notice, NOTHING prevents you from CHARGING THE GOVT with the most HEINOUS of crimes.
In fact, as long as you don't call for the ARMED overthrow of the govt you can do/say damn near anything you want.
IN PUBLIC
Because ALL our other liberties stem from FREE SPEECH.
Now of course, that also means that someone like Ed (or me) also has the right to tell you off.
Arthur
Interesting claim, that if we don't agree with you that we are choosing to "relinquish liberties".
But notice, NOTHING prevents you from CHARGING THE GOVT with the most HEINOUS of crimes.
In fact, as long as you don't call for the ARMED overthrow of the govt you can do/say damn near anything you want.
IN PUBLIC
Because ALL our other liberties stem from FREE SPEECH.
Now of course, that also means that someone like Ed (or me) also has the right to tell you off.
Arthur
I have no doubt that because I disagree with you that you would love to tell me off. If all of our liberties stem from free speech then why are there now fenced in "Free Speech Zones" during public protests such as the republican convention?
Your arguments and credibility are weakened by your personal attacks, Arthur. Strong words often take the place of weak counterpoints.
Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:
from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.
Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?
Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years. It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it?
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.
You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
Actually there was only ONE flight made without a pilot and no, they didn't taxi it anywhere, they lined it up on the runway, started the engines and then left the plane. The landing, alas was off target, and they didn't get the results they wanted.
Also they were not trying to do this COVERTLY, meaning the cockpit looked nothing like a regular cockpit. I'll see if I can find some pics. Had they been trying to do this "under the covers" the modifications would have been MUCH more daunting. Furthermore, unlike what you are suggesting, NASA was NOT trying to REMOTELY SIMULATE all the things a PILOT does to take a commercial plane off from a boarding gate. You know, like boarding the plane through the airport along with Flight Crew, SIGNING OFF ON THE PAPERWORK for the flight, backing out of the gate which reguires HAND SIGNALS TO AND FROM THE GROUND CREW and of course the pilot is quite visible to the moveable gangway operator during this time, notify the FAs, Starting the engines, talking to Ground Control and Tower and then taxing to the end of the correct runway etc etc. at which point they are also quite visible to other aircraft (and I can assure you during this time their ABSENSE would be noted)
So the fact that we HAVE technology that allows basic Remote Control of a plane is NOT an indication that we could REMOTELY take a commercial jet from an AIRPORT GATE without ANYONE being aware that there were not pilots on board the aircraft.
For you to suggest we could means you have to come up with a LOT more evidence than what NASA did in order to CRASH a jet.
So not only have you NOT SHOWN we COULD do it, you have SHOWN NO EVIDENCE we DID DO IT.
What YOU LIED about was this:
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727
Since Raytheon's system had NOTHING to do with Starting a jet up, taxing out or the actual TAKEOFF.
Of course when you make statements like:
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released?
Which are PATENTLY FALSE.
ALL of the sites were CRAWLING with NON-FEDERAL authorities, which ANY set of pictures of the aftermath will CLEARLY SHOW.
But what is MOST HILARIOUS is your use of LACK OF PROOF as PROOF.
As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.
As to
you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact.
Pardon me, but your BIAS is showing.
Arthur
Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:
from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.
Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?
Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years. It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it?
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.
You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
Actually there was only ONE flight made without a pilot and no, they didn't taxi it anywhere, they lined it up on the runway, started the engines and then left the plane. The landing, alas was off target, and they didn't get the results they wanted.
Also they were not trying to do this COVERTLY, meaning the cockpit looked nothing like a regular cockpit. I'll see if I can find some pics. Had they been trying to do this "under the covers" the modifications would have been MUCH more daunting. Furthermore, unlike what you are suggesting, NASA was NOT trying to REMOTELY SIMULATE all the things a PILOT does to take a commercial plane off from a boarding gate. You know, like boarding the plane through the airport along with Flight Crew, SIGNING OFF ON THE PAPERWORK for the flight, backing out of the gate which reguires HAND SIGNALS TO AND FROM THE GROUND CREW and of course the pilot is quite visible to the moveable gangway operator during this time, notify the FAs, Starting the engines, talking to Ground Control and Tower and then taxing to the end of the correct runway etc etc. at which point they are also quite visible to other aircraft (and I can assure you during this time their ABSENSE would be noted)
So the fact that we HAVE technology that allows this to happen in NO WAY suggests that it WAS used that day.
And you have SHOWN NO EVIDENCE it was used that day.
What YOU LIED about was this:
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727
Since Raytheon's system had NOTHING to do with Starting a jet up, taxing out or the actual TAKEOFF.
Of course when you make statements like:
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released?
Which are PATENTLY FALSE.
ALL of the sites were CRAWLING with NON-FEDERAL authorities, which ANY set of pictures of the aftermath will CLEARLY SHOW.
But what is MOST HILARIOUS is your use of LACK OF PROOF as PROOF.
As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.
As to
you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact.
Pardon me, but your BIAS is showing.
Arthur
I would love to see some of this evidence. Would you mind?
Yep, you got Arthur sussed.
I just engaged him in a debate about MSG which ran to many pages. With similar results ~ he just wants to 'win' the argument, whilst being obnoxious and rude along the way.
I wasn't just speculating here~ the flight deck is super complicated on big jets.
My father and half brother are both pilots for Air 2000 in England, and I know it takes ages before you are allowed to fly a big jet solo.
You have to work your way up through the ranks, and have years of training.
Yet we are supposed to believe that these guys with a bit of training in Cessnas and a few hours in a flight simulator can fly a big jet into a fairly small target.
Oh, I forgot, they read flight manuals, which they left in a taxi[?] so we would know where they had been and what training they had.
Also, if you can train to fly Cessnas and use flight simulators anywhere in the world, why would you risk blowing your cover by doing it in Florida?
These and many other questions remain unanswered.........
I wasn't just speculating here~ the flight deck is super complicated on big jets.
My father and half brother are both pilots for Air 2000 in England, and I know it takes ages before you are allowed to fly a big jet solo.
You have to work your way up through the ranks, and have years of training.
Yet we are supposed to believe that these guys with a bit of training in Cessnas and a few hours in a flight simulator can fly a big jet into a fairly small target.
Oh, I forgot, they read flight manuals, which they left in a taxi[?] so we would know where they had been and what training they had.
Also, if you can train to fly Cessnas and use flight simulators anywhere in the world, why would you risk blowing your cover by doing it in Florida?
These and many other questions remain unanswered.........
The flight deck is MORE complicatated, but the ESSENTIALS are the same.
In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.
PS, unlike AIR 2000, Terrorists organizations don't require long training regimens before Soloing as they really AREN'T concerned about the passanger safety or the aircraft condition after the flight.
WTC and Pentagon were fairly small targets? Right, what would be a LARGE target?
As far as Flight training in the US. Training FORIEGN pilots is (or was) a BIG BUSINESS in the US and pre 9/11 getting primary or advanced flight training would not raise suspicion.
Arthur
Gawd, they must put all those other dials and instruments there for the hell of it?
No super pilot skills required?
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems
Methinks you have been watching too many TV movies where the inexperienced hero takes control of the plane after the pilot is incapacitated.
Gawd, they must put all those other dials and instruments there for the hell of it?
No super pilot skills required?
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems
Methinks you have been watching too many TV movies where the inexperienced hero takes control of the plane after the pilot is incapacitated.
I'm a friggin PILOT (check the FAA database, I post under my REAL NAME).
Most of the other instruments are for Navigation, Communication, Radar, Engine Status, Fuel Status, Cabin Status etc etc. The PRIMARY FLIGHT instruments though remain essentially the SAME ,
767 cockpit
http://www.obapne.com/photos/2005%20Northe..._767Cockpit.jpg
Cessna 172 cockpit, the 172 is your basic fixed gear, fixed pitch, 4 passenger aircraft, used extensively for both flight training and rentals.
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/C...nfo/cockpit.jpg
I'll let you find the matching instruments, but ALL THE PRIMARY INSTRUMENTS are in BOTH cockpits and LOOK AND WORK THE SAME.
There are NO COMPUTER systems on a BOEING that have to be over-ridden. (we've been OVER this already) The LITTLE BUTTON on the yoke when pressed disconnects the auto pilot. Like I said, just like disconnecting cruise control on your car.
See:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/EA990/B767Cockpit.jpg
Also there were NO weird maneuvers prior to EITHER plane hitting the towers, the Pentagon plane did a SINGLE DESCENDING CONSTANT RATE TURN a most elemental of maneuvers.
Is there ANY BS you WON'T post.
The RADIO CONTROL angle is a NON-STARTER since there is NO WAY that a jet is going to leave a gate without PILOTS on board to sign off on the paper work and communicate with the rest of the flight crew and Ramp personnel.
Arthur
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
Don't you just LOVE people who post something like this without checking to see if ANY of it is TRUE?
QUOTE
They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
FALSE - A PILOT can use the system to fly from point to point, but the plane can not taxi to a runway and take-off on its own, nor can it land on its own.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. |
FALSE - A PILOT can use the system to fly from point to point, but the plane can not taxi to a runway and take-off on its own, nor can it land on its own.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury
FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of bouncing passengers all over the cabin.
QUOTE
the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls
FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of pullling high gs
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls |
FALSE - The flight controls are fully capable of pullling high gs
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
FALSE (there is NO FEATURE to override)
QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 11:27 PM)
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
I'll take that question, if you don't mind.
First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID). Here is the info (including movies) on that experiment. It was the first remote controlled flight of a commercial aircraft that I am aware of. Regardless of the freshmen attempt at controlled flight, this set the footwork for future remote controlled aircraft flights.
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver
Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
757-200 Background - Flight Deck
As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?
Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise?
EDIT-
Amadaun,
I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:
Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
All you 911 Conspiracy hacks are *** retards. You really PISS ME OFF. How many people have to die and suffer horrible agonizing deaths before you accept the fact that OSAMA BIN LADEN is responsible for these atrocities. No American military or Government could be responsible for this and you all ASSHOLES for suggesting such a thing.Please STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS by spreading their PROPAGANDA.
GROW UP AND WISE UP OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED including you conspiracy retards.
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 31 2006, 03:29 PM)
All you 911 Conspiracy hacks are *** retards. You really PISS ME OFF. How many people have to die and suffer horrible agonizing deaths before you accept the fact that OSAMA BIN LADEN is responsible for these atrocities. No American military or Government could be responsible for this and you all ASSHOLES for suggesting such a thing.Please STOP HELPING THE TERRORISTS by spreading their PROPAGANDA.
GROW UP AND WISE UP OR WE ARE ALL DOOMED including you conspiracy retards.
Show me one shred of CONCLUSIVE PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Nowhere does it mention that OBL is wanted with regard to the 9/11 attacks. Prove otherwise. The federal government cannot do so and neither can you. You rely solely on unsubstantiated heresay that you hear, read and see in the mainstream media.
You should be upset about the death of nearly 3000 people here in the US as a result of the attacks. However, you should direct your anger at those who committed the atrocities and not rely on a propaganda campaign devised by the White House and promulgated by the mainstream media. There IS one way that can help to prove who committed the 9/11 attacks though- ask federal law enforcement to release all evidence pertaining to these events on 9/11.
Be upset. Be VERY upset. Be upset that the US government lied about the air quality at Ground Zero in the EPA air quality report in part to get the stock market back up and running at the expense of many more innocent lives. There are and will be many more deaths attributed to the WTC collapses in the form of lung cancers and resiratory diseases from airborne asbestos, heavy metals and other harmful inhaled particles. If the US government didn't commit the atrocities, they certainly added to the fatality rates by lying about the air quality there weeks after the attacks. THAT my friend, IS a government conspiracy. Don't shoot the messenger, Ed Wood.
While you're at it, why don't you show us conclusive proof that AIDS is caused by HIV? It's another common misconception that somehow gets accepted because we are innundated with such a false claim. You won't find any proof of HIV causing AIDS anywhere either. Do you know why? It's because it's an unsubstantiated claim that has no backing proof like Al Qaeda did 9/11. Research this for months and you still will not find a source of the claim, much less any actual proff of such a claim as credible. CDC, WHO, experts in the field, etc... No one has proof yet they just accept it at face value. This is the case with the 9/11 attacks too. The deeper you delve, the more inconsistancies and false attributes you will find in the official and accepted version of the story. Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. You will learn a lot about heresay and facts.
QUOTE
Show me one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:
You mean like in the last tape Osama Douchbag Bin Laden sent to AL Al Jazeera where he CLAIMS He Hand picked the 19 hijackers?
Osama Claims responsibility for the attacks on 911
Or how about this one?
Osama claims responsibility
Why do you hate my country so much?
The
PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT Osama Bin Laden is a Manipulative PU$$Y *** that persuades simpleminded retards like the 19 hijackers that he Personally Selected for the 911 Mission and yourself Barkley to do his bidding.
Please stop spreading his propaganda.
Unless you really do hate My country the United States Of America then by all means feel free to be an Osama Bin Laden douchbag Lackey, but at least have the Balls ADMIT you HATE the United States Of America and that is why you are doing so.
QUOTE (Barkley+May 31 2006, 10:21 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE
the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
I'll take that question, if you don't mind.
First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver
Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
757-200 Background - Flight Deck
As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?
Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise?
EDIT-
Amadaun,
I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:
Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).
But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.
Well Duh.
Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.
Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.
The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.
Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.
So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.
For this to work on 9/11, the planes would have had to been equipped and the GROUND STATION would have had to be installed in the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
And as to all that BS about G limits:
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."
Why the long winded answer, since he didn't DISPUTE one of my claims. Because AFTER he posts things which PROVE every one of my claims was in fact correct he joins the standard CT'er brigade:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. |
FALSE - There IS NO remote control feature.
Ok Amadamadun, you posted this, now why don't you back it up with some facts, you know like from the BOEING site?
Sheeesh.
Arthur
I'll take that question, if you don't mind.
First of all, the technology to fly an unmanned commercial jet was already out there for some time. In 1984, NASA and the FAA rigged a fully fueled Boeing 727 with a remote control system in order to crash it to determine the effectiveness of a fire suppressant added to the the jet fuel. They called it a Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID).
Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
Further developments took place over the years, culminating in remote control flight experiments in a joint effort by Raytheon, Rockwell-Collins and the US military in 2001 - prior to 9/11. It was touted as a dual purpose sytem that could (and would) be implemented in civil aviation as a counterterrorism measure, in which the aircraft could be controlled from the ground and/or a portable airborne site such as a C-130 Hercules. In this manner, the onboard flight controls could be locked out to any terrorist or rogue pilot while the aircraft could be landed at a nearby airport or other desired location.
http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/briefs/jpals.html
Civil-Military Interoperability For GPS Assisted Aircraft Landings Demonstrated
Rockwell Collins Successfully Completes Flight Tests with Industry’s First Microwave Landing System Receiver in a Multi-Mode Receiver
Raytheon and USAF Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Landing System
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727. Although it was announced on 9/6/01, the testing was completed over the three prior months at Holloman AFB. Interestingly enough, there were five Raytheon employees on 3 of the hijacked aircraft.
"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.
The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."
757-200 Background - Flight Deck
As we have seen, Boeing 757/767's can be programmed via GPS to fly to any point(s) within its fuel range immediately after takeoff and up to its landing. As evidenced from the above links, installing the Raytheon/Rockwell-Collins remote control equipment can facilitate a remote takeoff or landing. Who even said that the airline passengers were even on said aircraft? There are discrepancies in both boarding gate and times for the aircraft in question. In fact, Flight 77 wasn't even a scheduled run for 9/11 according to the BTS website. Furthermore, we KNOW that the US military had the same model year aircraft in their inventory. Where are these particular aircraft now and can they all be fully accounted for?
Air Force Selects Boeing 757 For Special Air Mission
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise?
EDIT-
Amadaun,
I forgot this but wanted to post it so that we can see that in all fairness, I choose to refute things that aren't true whether they support a conspiracy or not as related to the events of 9/11. Although Airbus does not allow a piot override on its aircraft, Boeing does let a pilot override the computer navigation system on their aircraft. Incidentally, the 777 is the only aircraft they make that is a fly-by-wire system. While there is a fully programmable GPS-based navigation system as a standard on these aircraft to control in-flight navigational manuevers, there is no remote control feature standard on Boeing 757/767s YET. Anyway, here is the information to refute that erroneous claim:
Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology
Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).
But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.
Well Duh.
Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.
Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.
The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.
Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.
So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.
For this to work on 9/11, the planes would have had to been equipped and the GROUND STATION would have had to be installed in the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
And as to all that BS about G limits:
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits. "It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."
Why the long winded answer, since he didn't DISPUTE one of my claims. Because AFTER he posts things which PROVE every one of my claims was in fact correct he joins the standard CT'er brigade:
So, will you say that this possibility is NOT possible after all of this information from credible sources stating otherwise
Almost anything IS POSSIBLE but that is not the same as saying its likely or in this case that you have a SHRED of EVIDENCE that it happened.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering WHY the pervasive lies about the REMOTE CONTROL TAKEOFF CAPABILITY, that's because if you can't takeoff you still need pilots willing to commit suicide. If that's the case then you don't need REMOTE CONTROL. And of course, having suicidal pilots on board leads you right back to Atta and company.
Which is the POINT of all his BS, to convince people that Atta and company didn't do it.
Arthur
QUOTE (Ed Wood+May 31 2006, 04:56 PM)
QUOTE
Show me one shred of PROOF that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks, please. Not even the FBI can claim that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. See for yourself:
You mean like in the last tape Osama Douchbag Bin Laden sent to AL Al Jazeera where he CLAIMS He Hand picked the 19 hijackers?
Osama Claims responsibility for the attacks on 911
Or how about this one?
Osama claims responsibility
Why do you hate my country so much?
The
PLAIN SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT Osama Bin Laden is a Manipulative PU$$Y *** that persuades simpleminded retards like the 19 hijackers that he Personally Selected for the 911 Mission and yourself Barkley to do his bidding.
Please stop spreading his propaganda.
Unless you really do hate My country the United States Of America then by all means feel free to be an Osama Bin Laden douchbag Lackey, but at least have the Balls ADMIT you HATE the United States Of America and that is why you are doing so.
It is painfully obvious that you have no interest in any sort of discussion. Instead, you seek only to vent. That's fine but you lack credibility if you think that people should just blindly accept such heresay.
Your country? Since when do you have the right to lay sole claim to OUR nation? The US is my country too and I choose to question such events because I love my country dearly and do not want to see this system of government changed into an authoritarian dictatorship. You know absolutely nothing of me or my qualifications in any matters of state. What sacrifices have YOU made in the effort to promote the continuation of our way of life and system of government?
This grand experiment of a democratic republic has lasted only 219 years so far and contrary to what many people believe, it is frail and needs constant attention to see that it continues to exist and to pass it along to our children in a healthy state. In terms of time, it is a mere drop in the bucket. By comparison, the Roman and Greek empires lasted over a millenia while the Ottoman empire lasted for over 600 years. The danger to our form of government does not come from the outside, Ed Wood. It resides within. When our own citizens become lazy and stop being vigilant of their government, they are apt to lose it to those who would take advantage of our inattention.
You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not. You want your pound of flesh in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks yet you have no conclusive proof as to who actually committed such atrocities and no one here on this forum does either. You are young. It is apparent in your emotional outbursts. You speak without the benefit of forethought and that is exactly the type of mob rule mentality that leads to suppression of civil rights and the rise of an authoritarian state. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell sometime. Perhaps you'll see the parallel here. Here's a clue: Snowball didn't do it.
QUOTE
You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not.
Interesting claim, that if we don't agree with you that we are choosing to "relinquish liberties".
But notice, NOTHING prevents you from CHARGING THE GOVT with the most HEINOUS of crimes.
In fact, as long as you don't call for the ARMED overthrow of the govt you can do/say damn near anything you want.
IN PUBLIC
Because ALL our other liberties stem from FREE SPEECH.
Now of course, that also means that someone like Ed (or me) also has the right to tell you off.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 31 2006, 05:03 PM)
Barkley is long winded but in that entire post he managed to AGREE with all of my previous points (though you would hardly know it).
But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.
Well Duh.
Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.
Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.
The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.
Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.
So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.
Almost anything IS POSSIBLE but that is not the same as saying its likely or in this case that you have a SHRED of EVIDENCE that it happened.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering WHY the pervasive lies about the REMOTE CONTROL TAKEOFF CAPABILITY, that's because if you can't takeoff you still need pilots willing to commit suicide. If that's the case then you don't need REMOTE CONTROL. And of course, having suicidal pilots on board leads you right back to Atta and company.
Which is the POINT of all his BS, to convince people that Atta and company didn't do it.
Arthur
Arthur,
Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:
from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.
Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?
Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years. It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it?
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.
You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
But first he goes off on a tangent about the fact that jet planes CAN be flown by Remote Control.
Well Duh.
Since that's well known its hardly important, unless you can show that THOSE SPECIFIC planes had Remote Controls installed. Which of course NO ONE HAS.
Even the Raytheon system mentioned does not start until AFTER TAKEOFF and then only UNTIL you get ready to land.
The CLAIM that Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727 is only PARTIALLY true and not very relevant.
Note: Raytheon designed and developed the differential GPS ground station under an Air Force contract for the Joint Precision Approach and Landings System (JPALS) program. The JPALS system is being developed to meet the Defense Department's need for an anti-jam, secure, all weather Category II/III aircraft landing system that will be fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilising the same technology. Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force have been conducting extensive flight testing for JPALS at Holloman over the last three months.
The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full autolands using the JPALS ground station.
So it was NOT A TAKEOFF/LANDING SYSTEM as he claims. What they developed was the GROUND STATION for a LANDING SYSTEM.
Almost anything IS POSSIBLE but that is not the same as saying its likely or in this case that you have a SHRED of EVIDENCE that it happened.
Oh, and in case anyone is wondering WHY the pervasive lies about the REMOTE CONTROL TAKEOFF CAPABILITY, that's because if you can't takeoff you still need pilots willing to commit suicide. If that's the case then you don't need REMOTE CONTROL. And of course, having suicidal pilots on board leads you right back to Atta and company.
Which is the POINT of all his BS, to convince people that Atta and company didn't do it.
Arthur
Arthur,
Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:
from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.
Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?
Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years.
It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it? So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.
You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 31 2006, 06:29 PM)
QUOTE
You should probably read the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution sometime to remind yourself what the hell you are missing out on. You can choose to relinguish liberties guaranteed by our Constitution in exchange for a hollow promise of security. However, I do not.
Interesting claim, that if we don't agree with you that we are choosing to "relinquish liberties".
But notice, NOTHING prevents you from CHARGING THE GOVT with the most HEINOUS of crimes.
In fact, as long as you don't call for the ARMED overthrow of the govt you can do/say damn near anything you want.
IN PUBLIC
Because ALL our other liberties stem from FREE SPEECH.
Now of course, that also means that someone like Ed (or me) also has the right to tell you off.
Arthur
I have no doubt that because I disagree with you that you would love to tell me off. If all of our liberties stem from free speech then why are there now fenced in "Free Speech Zones" during public protests such as the republican convention?
Your arguments and credibility are weakened by your personal attacks, Arthur. Strong words often take the place of weak counterpoints.
QUOTE (Barkley+May 31 2006, 02:36 PM)
Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:
from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.
Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?
Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years.
It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it? So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.
You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
Actually there was only ONE flight made without a pilot and no, they didn't taxi it anywhere, they lined it up on the runway, started the engines and then left the plane. The landing, alas was off target, and they didn't get the results they wanted.
Also they were not trying to do this COVERTLY, meaning the cockpit looked nothing like a regular cockpit. I'll see if I can find some pics. Had they been trying to do this "under the covers" the modifications would have been MUCH more daunting. Furthermore, unlike what you are suggesting, NASA was NOT trying to REMOTELY SIMULATE all the things a PILOT does to take a commercial plane off from a boarding gate. You know, like boarding the plane through the airport along with Flight Crew, SIGNING OFF ON THE PAPERWORK for the flight, backing out of the gate which reguires HAND SIGNALS TO AND FROM THE GROUND CREW and of course the pilot is quite visible to the moveable gangway operator during this time, notify the FAs, Starting the engines, talking to Ground Control and Tower and then taxing to the end of the correct runway etc etc. at which point they are also quite visible to other aircraft (and I can assure you during this time their ABSENSE would be noted)
So the fact that we HAVE technology that allows basic Remote Control of a plane is NOT an indication that we could REMOTELY take a commercial jet from an AIRPORT GATE without ANYONE being aware that there were not pilots on board the aircraft.
For you to suggest we could means you have to come up with a LOT more evidence than what NASA did in order to CRASH a jet.
So not only have you NOT SHOWN we COULD do it, you have SHOWN NO EVIDENCE we DID DO IT.
What YOU LIED about was this:
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727
Since Raytheon's system had NOTHING to do with Starting a jet up, taxing out or the actual TAKEOFF.
Of course when you make statements like:
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released?
Which are PATENTLY FALSE.
ALL of the sites were CRAWLING with NON-FEDERAL authorities, which ANY set of pictures of the aftermath will CLEARLY SHOW.
But what is MOST HILARIOUS is your use of LACK OF PROOF as PROOF.
As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.
As to
you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact.
Pardon me, but your BIAS is showing.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 31 2006, 07:31 PM)
QUOTE (Barkley+May 31 2006, 02:36 PM)
Nice attempt at discrediting my post (and me) however, you failed to notice the following, which directly refutes your claim (again) about manned takeoff as a necessity:
from the NASA website:
"The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway."
Apparently, remotely piloted takeoff means that no pilot was inside the aircraft OPERATING the flight controls upon takeoff. You claim that a pilot is still needed for the taxi down the runway. Why? Hell, these tests above were conducted in 1984! I'm certain that you are not naieve enough to think that remote control technology hadn't advanced at all since then? A tractor pushes an airliner out from a gate and places it in taxiing position. How hard is driving a plane to the runway at low speed when you have a trained operator and a damn video monitor with an audiolink to the ATC? It's doubtful that an ATC would even know that no one was in the cockpit.
Since when does the military release cutting edge technologies to the public? LOL. The F-117A Stealth was flying since 1982 yet the general public was unaware of its existence until 1988. Do you HONESTLY think that there is no viable remote control sytem for use in the US military during 2001 given that the successful testing announcements of the Raytheon landing system were made?
Have you ever heard of the Global Hawk?! Unless you have been living under a rock, you'd know that this technology is currently being used on a regular basis. Obviously, this type of remote takeoff/landing system didn't just appear in the last 4 years.
It publically debuted in October, 2001. That means that the remote control technology was ALREADY AVAILABLE to the military establishment prior to that date. Get it? So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released? You are being disingenuous with most of these arguments and you are clearly aware of it.
You claim that I want to convince people that Atta didn't do it. Contrary to that statement, I want PROOF that Atta and Co. did it. Proof that is not forthcoming from the federal government. What is so wrong with wanting conclusive proof of who committed a murder of almost 3000 people on US soil? Am I wrong or a conspiracy theorist for wanting to be sure? Or is it in vogue to shoot first and ask questions only after they're dead now- because dead men tell no tales? Likewise, it could quite effectively be argued that you want to convince people that Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks. In this effort, you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact. Still, you consider me a CT'er, lol. I suppose that Oswald did all the shooting in Dealey Plaza as well?
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
Actually there was only ONE flight made without a pilot and no, they didn't taxi it anywhere, they lined it up on the runway, started the engines and then left the plane. The landing, alas was off target, and they didn't get the results they wanted.
Also they were not trying to do this COVERTLY, meaning the cockpit looked nothing like a regular cockpit. I'll see if I can find some pics. Had they been trying to do this "under the covers" the modifications would have been MUCH more daunting. Furthermore, unlike what you are suggesting, NASA was NOT trying to REMOTELY SIMULATE all the things a PILOT does to take a commercial plane off from a boarding gate. You know, like boarding the plane through the airport along with Flight Crew, SIGNING OFF ON THE PAPERWORK for the flight, backing out of the gate which reguires HAND SIGNALS TO AND FROM THE GROUND CREW and of course the pilot is quite visible to the moveable gangway operator during this time, notify the FAs, Starting the engines, talking to Ground Control and Tower and then taxing to the end of the correct runway etc etc. at which point they are also quite visible to other aircraft (and I can assure you during this time their ABSENSE would be noted)
So the fact that we HAVE technology that allows this to happen in NO WAY suggests that it WAS used that day.
And you have SHOWN NO EVIDENCE it was used that day.
What YOU LIED about was this:
Raytheon developed a remote controlled takeoff/landing system and had already tested it out successfully on a Boeing 727
Since Raytheon's system had NOTHING to do with Starting a jet up, taxing out or the actual TAKEOFF.
Of course when you make statements like:
So why wasn't remote control parts found at the Pentagon, WTC or Shanksville? How can anyone make such a supposition when no one outside of federal authorities were allowed near the wreckage? All photos released pertaining to the disasters were censored and cleared by the FBI and DOD. Do you honestly think that they would allow such photos of wreckage to be released?
Which are PATENTLY FALSE.
ALL of the sites were CRAWLING with NON-FEDERAL authorities, which ANY set of pictures of the aftermath will CLEARLY SHOW.
But what is MOST HILARIOUS is your use of LACK OF PROOF as PROOF.
As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.
As to
you choose to ignore lots of incredible coincidences that we are asked to believe by the federal government and are willing to accept a premise that is full of holes and has no basis in fact.
Pardon me, but your BIAS is showing.
Arthur
QUOTE
As far as PROOF that it was Atta and company, clearly nothing will convince you, so I'm certainly not going to waste my time.
I would love to see some of this evidence. Would you mind?
Having posted on this topic for some time now its quite clear that if TODAY you do not believe it was Atta and co. that did it, then NOTHING I post is going to change that.
Have a nice day.
Arthur
Have a nice day.
Arthur
Barkley, 'Peace be unto you'
What I see is that you have created is at best a very unlikely possibility at worst an attempt to deceive.
In order to even entertain the possibility that the "Government" is responsible you must have answers the following questions.
What is the "governments" motive?
Who in the "government" would gain anything by killing 3000 Americans?
What would "they" gain?
How have "they" the inept Government managed to keep such a secret when "they" cannot even keep it a secret that "they" have certain surveillance programs without leaks or find out what happened to those missing weapons of Mass Destruction or even Plant weapons of Mass Destruction to make themselves look good?
Has anyone other than Osama Bin Laden CONFESSED to Ordering the ATTACKS on 9/11?
By the way when I said my country I was assuming you were not an American as you seem to dislike our form of government so much you try to spread lies half truths in an effort to deceive and spread fear among freethinking people thereof. As you may recall in Animal Farm that is how the pigs manage to ruin it for everyone else. It only takes one to deceive the whole world as long as he has believers who are willing to do his bidding.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
What I see is that you have created is at best a very unlikely possibility at worst an attempt to deceive.
In order to even entertain the possibility that the "Government" is responsible you must have answers the following questions.
What is the "governments" motive?
Who in the "government" would gain anything by killing 3000 Americans?
What would "they" gain?
How have "they" the inept Government managed to keep such a secret when "they" cannot even keep it a secret that "they" have certain surveillance programs without leaks or find out what happened to those missing weapons of Mass Destruction or even Plant weapons of Mass Destruction to make themselves look good?
Has anyone other than Osama Bin Laden CONFESSED to Ordering the ATTACKS on 9/11?
By the way when I said my country I was assuming you were not an American as you seem to dislike our form of government so much you try to spread lies half truths in an effort to deceive and spread fear among freethinking people thereof. As you may recall in Animal Farm that is how the pigs manage to ruin it for everyone else. It only takes one to deceive the whole world as long as he has believers who are willing to do his bidding.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
Barkley.............
It says they can override the onboard computers, but are we to believe that amateur pilots, trained in Cessna's, knew how to do this? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be an automatic override. [Let alone fly the plane accurately into a target, with only a few hours of experience. I'm sure the flight deck on a jet would be a little more complicated than that of a Cessna.]
Thanks for the other info you posted, interesting stuff.
Especially that Raytheon employees were supposed to be on board the plane.
When I have more time, I will check out the other links you supplied as well.
QUOTE
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.
It says they can override the onboard computers, but are we to believe that amateur pilots, trained in Cessna's, knew how to do this? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be an automatic override. [Let alone fly the plane accurately into a target, with only a few hours of experience. I'm sure the flight deck on a jet would be a little more complicated than that of a Cessna.]
Thanks for the other info you posted, interesting stuff.
Especially that Raytheon employees were supposed to be on board the plane.
When I have more time, I will check out the other links you supplied as well.
QUOTE
I'm beginning to think that perhaps you are a disinformation specialist. You ignore a lot of obvious flaws in the government theory and at times appear to even attempt to distort facts presented to make your case. I'm not about winning an argument, Arthur. I just want an honest and open discussion on this topic in addition to a transparent and independent investigation. You seem to oppose such things with every fiber of your being. I just don't understand your actions at all.
Yep, you got Arthur sussed.
I just engaged him in a debate about MSG which ran to many pages. With similar results ~ he just wants to 'win' the argument, whilst being obnoxious and rude along the way.
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 2 2006, 09:10 PM)
Barkley.............
It says they can override the onboard computers, but are we to believe that amateur pilots, trained in Cessna's, knew how to do this? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be an automatic override. [Let alone fly the plane accurately into a target, with only a few hours of experience. I'm sure the flight deck on a jet would be a little more complicated than that of a Cessna.]
Thanks for the other info you posted, interesting stuff.
Especially that Raytheon employees were supposed to be on board the plane.
When I have more time, I will check out the other links you supplied as well.
You just move the controls to over-ride the computers.
Once you move the controls you automatically DISCONNECT the auto-pilot.
This is IDENTICAL to how you disconnect the cruise control on your car by tapping the breaks.
Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.
Arthur
QUOTE
The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.
It says they can override the onboard computers, but are we to believe that amateur pilots, trained in Cessna's, knew how to do this? I'm assuming that it wouldn't be an automatic override. [Let alone fly the plane accurately into a target, with only a few hours of experience. I'm sure the flight deck on a jet would be a little more complicated than that of a Cessna.]
Thanks for the other info you posted, interesting stuff.
Especially that Raytheon employees were supposed to be on board the plane.
When I have more time, I will check out the other links you supplied as well.
You just move the controls to over-ride the computers.
Once you move the controls you automatically DISCONNECT the auto-pilot.
This is IDENTICAL to how you disconnect the cruise control on your car by tapping the breaks.
Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.
Arthur
I'm not just talking about the auto pilot, but the software limits.
What would be the point of installing these limits, if they can be easily overridden with the controls?
What would be the point of installing these limits, if they can be easily overridden with the controls?
QUOTE
Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.
I wasn't just speculating here~ the flight deck is super complicated on big jets.
My father and half brother are both pilots for Air 2000 in England, and I know it takes ages before you are allowed to fly a big jet solo.
You have to work your way up through the ranks, and have years of training.
Yet we are supposed to believe that these guys with a bit of training in Cessnas and a few hours in a flight simulator can fly a big jet into a fairly small target.
Oh, I forgot, they read flight manuals, which they left in a taxi[?] so we would know where they had been and what training they had.
Also, if you can train to fly Cessnas and use flight simulators anywhere in the world, why would you risk blowing your cover by doing it in Florida?
These and many other questions remain unanswered.........
Hey Barkley and the rest of you conspiracy wack jobs,
One of your top commanders in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was TERMINATED today.
Don't worry though for now you you can still receive instructions for the undermining of American Freedoms Osama Bin Ladens' tapes.
By the way he is on the same list that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was on so the amount of BS. he is able to send you may be limited.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
One of your top commanders in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was TERMINATED today.
Don't worry though for now you you can still receive instructions for the undermining of American Freedoms Osama Bin Ladens' tapes.
By the way he is on the same list that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was on so the amount of BS. he is able to send you may be limited.
Have a nice day.
Ed Wood
Wood 'ed.........
I'm sure its very comforting for you to believe that the bad Arabs are the ones endangering your freedoms.
Its very disconcerting to have to consider other possibilities, like government orchestrated destruction.
So, stay safe in your coccoon, but don't complain when the rest of us speculate on who, why and how, huh?
Or you could think about what you're losing..........
I'm sure its very comforting for you to believe that the bad Arabs are the ones endangering your freedoms.
Its very disconcerting to have to consider other possibilities, like government orchestrated destruction.
So, stay safe in your coccoon, but don't complain when the rest of us speculate on who, why and how, huh?
Or you could think about what you're losing..........
QUOTE
The National Security Agency (NSA) has been collecting the phone call records of millions of Americans, without warrants, under the guise of anti-terrorism protection.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit group that works on protecting privacy, contends that the phone company cannot give customer data to the federal government without a warrant, and have filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T for doing so.
The government is now trying to have the case thrown out because of alleged "security reasons." This is the typical pattern of the government to introduce a problem, generate a reaction -- fear -- and then come up with a solution that takes away your freedom in exchange for their protection from the perceived threat.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit group that works on protecting privacy, contends that the phone company cannot give customer data to the federal government without a warrant, and have filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T for doing so.
The government is now trying to have the case thrown out because of alleged "security reasons." This is the typical pattern of the government to introduce a problem, generate a reaction -- fear -- and then come up with a solution that takes away your freedom in exchange for their protection from the perceived threat.
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 5 2006, 09:09 PM)
QUOTE
Yes the flight deck is more complicated, which is why they spent money to buy time in 767 simulators.
I wasn't just speculating here~ the flight deck is super complicated on big jets.
My father and half brother are both pilots for Air 2000 in England, and I know it takes ages before you are allowed to fly a big jet solo.
You have to work your way up through the ranks, and have years of training.
Yet we are supposed to believe that these guys with a bit of training in Cessnas and a few hours in a flight simulator can fly a big jet into a fairly small target.
Oh, I forgot, they read flight manuals, which they left in a taxi[?] so we would know where they had been and what training they had.
Also, if you can train to fly Cessnas and use flight simulators anywhere in the world, why would you risk blowing your cover by doing it in Florida?
These and many other questions remain unanswered.........
The flight deck is MORE complicatated, but the ESSENTIALS are the same.
In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.
PS, unlike AIR 2000, Terrorists organizations don't require long training regimens before Soloing as they really AREN'T concerned about the passanger safety or the aircraft condition after the flight.
WTC and Pentagon were fairly small targets? Right, what would be a LARGE target?
As far as Flight training in the US. Training FORIEGN pilots is (or was) a BIG BUSINESS in the US and pre 9/11 getting primary or advanced flight training would not raise suspicion.
Arthur
Barkley,
You might be interested in this.
And these little snippets.........
A former adjunct economics professor at New York's Yeshiva University, Rabbi Zakheim has spent more than 30 years working in various jobs at the Pentagon. But he has also worked in private industry, specifically as a consultant to McDonnell Douglas and Boeing
.............an dual Israeli-American citizen as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the United States Dept. of Defense should raise some eyebrows. He was also President Bush's senior foreign policy advisor during the 2000 campaign.
The plot sickens...........
You might be interested in this.
QUOTE
Now here's a new wrinkle for conspiracy theorists who believe that the hijacked planes were actually remotely controlled from the ground and that the hijackers were actually themselves turned into suicide mission patsies. Put this name into your system: Dov Zakheim
BACKGROUND
1985 to 1987 he was deputy under secretary of defense for planning and resources, and held various other senior Pentagon posts in the Reagan administration. He was previously with the Congressional Budget Office. Zakheim is currently corporate vice president of the Systems Planning Corporation (SPC), a high-technology research, analysis, and manufacturing firm, and chief executive officer and president of SPC International, Inc. In 1998, Zakheim, an expert in ballistic missiles, worked in 1998 with Rumsfeld Commission. More significantly, he is a long-time Bush associate, having served as a policy advisor to the governor during the 2000 campaign. In May, 2001, Zakheim was sworn in to the Bush Administration as Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) of the DOD.
Here's the wrinkle: Zakheim's company produces advanced Command Transmitter Systems, designed to provide "remote control and flight termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid state system." The unit is just 5 feet high and can be mounted easily on a mobile platform. Although designed to control unmanned flights such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British aviation engineer said after 9/11 that the planes used in the attacks were could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote control units.
BACKGROUND
1985 to 1987 he was deputy under secretary of defense for planning and resources, and held various other senior Pentagon posts in the Reagan administration. He was previously with the Congressional Budget Office. Zakheim is currently corporate vice president of the Systems Planning Corporation (SPC), a high-technology research, analysis, and manufacturing firm, and chief executive officer and president of SPC International, Inc. In 1998, Zakheim, an expert in ballistic missiles, worked in 1998 with Rumsfeld Commission. More significantly, he is a long-time Bush associate, having served as a policy advisor to the governor during the 2000 campaign. In May, 2001, Zakheim was sworn in to the Bush Administration as Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) of the DOD.
Here's the wrinkle: Zakheim's company produces advanced Command Transmitter Systems, designed to provide "remote control and flight termination functions through a fully redundant, self-contained solid state system." The unit is just 5 feet high and can be mounted easily on a mobile platform. Although designed to control unmanned flights such as Global hawk from remote positions on the ground, one British aviation engineer said after 9/11 that the planes used in the attacks were could have been equipped with, or suitable for, such remote control units.
And these little snippets.........
A former adjunct economics professor at New York's Yeshiva University, Rabbi Zakheim has spent more than 30 years working in various jobs at the Pentagon. But he has also worked in private industry, specifically as a consultant to McDonnell Douglas and Boeing
.............an dual Israeli-American citizen as Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer of the United States Dept. of Defense should raise some eyebrows. He was also President Bush's senior foreign policy advisor during the 2000 campaign.
The plot sickens...........
QUOTE
In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.
Gawd, they must put all those other dials and instruments there for the hell of it?
No super pilot skills required?
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems
Methinks you have been watching too many TV movies where the inexperienced hero takes control of the plane after the pilot is incapacitated.
QUOTE (amadaun+Jun 14 2006, 09:39 PM)
QUOTE
In fact, the PRIMARY flight instruments: Turn & Bank Indicator, Airspeed indicator and Vertical Speed Indicator ARE AVAILABLE and in an IDENTICAL format that one you would find on a Cessna and are ALL YOU NEED TO FLY ANY AIRCRAFT, even in instrument conditions. Add to that the Flight Director which projects a visual representation of the classic Attitude gyro, along with the standard compass and standard altimeter and the fact that the Flight Controls (stick & rudder) operate identically and that they weren't concerned with takeoff or landing, then NO, what they did, did NOT require super pilot skills.
Gawd, they must put all those other dials and instruments there for the hell of it?
No super pilot skills required?
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea
that the override functionality of the planes' computers was
somehow defeated, allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited
maneuvers. For example, there are multiple photographs and video
clips showing AA Flight 175 making an outrageously hard turn
into the second tower. According to official information, the
plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in
this manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced
large plane skills, and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems
Methinks you have been watching too many TV movies where the inexperienced hero takes control of the plane after the pilot is incapacitated.
I'm a friggin PILOT (check the FAA database, I post under my REAL NAME).
Most of the other instruments are for Navigation, Communication, Radar, Engine Status, Fuel Status, Cabin Status etc etc. The PRIMARY FLIGHT instruments though remain essentially the SAME ,
767 cockpit
http://www.obapne.com/photos/2005%20Northe..._767Cockpit.jpg
Cessna 172 cockpit, the 172 is your basic fixed gear, fixed pitch, 4 passenger aircraft, used extensively for both flight training and rentals.
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/C...nfo/cockpit.jpg
I'll let you find the matching instruments, but ALL THE PRIMARY INSTRUMENTS are in BOTH cockpits and LOOK AND WORK THE SAME.
There are NO COMPUTER systems on a BOEING that have to be over-ridden. (we've been OVER this already) The LITTLE BUTTON on the yoke when pressed disconnects the auto pilot. Like I said, just like disconnecting cruise control on your car.
See:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/EA990/B767Cockpit.jpg
Also there were NO weird maneuvers prior to EITHER plane hitting the towers, the Pentagon plane did a SINGLE DESCENDING CONSTANT RATE TURN a most elemental of maneuvers.
Is there ANY BS you WON'T post.
The RADIO CONTROL angle is a NON-STARTER since there is NO WAY that a jet is going to leave a gate without PILOTS on board to sign off on the paper work and communicate with the rest of the flight crew and Ramp personnel.
Arthur
I like to consider the opinion of experts in the field........
Retired career Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff has highlighted the problem of the official story with respect to the Pentagon strike:
[excerpt]
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.
Retired career Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff has highlighted the problem of the official story with respect to the Pentagon strike:
[excerpt]
QUOTE
....Now, the real kicker: A pilot they want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy into the side of this building at 460 nauts.
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse ***!
When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further training on a flight simulator.
This is like saying you prepared your teenager for her first drive on I-40 at rush hour by buying her a video driving game. It's horse ***!
However, air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who tracked the radar signal from Flight 77, stated that it was flown like a fighter jet.