9/11: Any Evidence for remote controlled planes?

[Hitstirrer]

Do you think it's even likely though? How would this fit in with your theory of controlled demolition?

Dont try to lure me into going off-topic please. You would then 'start a conversation' .

 

[Keith Beachy]

...
First of all, I find it disappointing that both pilots and laymen in here find it hard to believe in even the technical ability to remotely fly a large plane in 2001. With that mindset it is obviously hard to move forward to consider the use on 9/11 if it is thought that it's not possible in the first place.

...
All seven of those Raytheon experts were passengers on three of the 9/11 hijacked planes and died that day.

Raytheon had an office in WTC2 - 91st floor. Impact zone.

Raytheon also rented approx 9 sq ft of space in WTC1 - some kind of cabinet. Close to impact zone.

...

On the stock planes flown on 911 it would be impossible to hit the WTC with the equipment they had, did you study the errors for navigation? What is the navigation error for a 767/757 flown on 911.

Flight 77 and Flight 93 were hand flown by it appears poor pilots who can't hold an altitude or bank angle. Hand flown into the Pentagon, hand flown into the ground - proof from the FDRs. And there is not tracking program on the 767s used on 911 to hit the WTC, they would most likely miss by 1/4 mile, or thousands of feet, that is the navigation you had on 911, no GPS updates, no 10 meter accuracy on the stock jets on 911.

As a pilot I can refuse to fly a jet that is modified in anyway which is not in the manual. I see a new box in the electronics bay, we don't fly, end of story; Coincidence, no it is what a pilot would do. Why would someone spend billions of dollars to remote control 4 planes when you can find idiots like UBL did to fly them and only spend flight training money - and produce 4 of the worse pilots in history to crash.

To add the paranoia of Raytheon experts on 911 killed to the fantasy of an inside job is what 911 truth does, BS.

It is not impossible to remotely fly a large plane; but it cost a lot of money; what is the method of remote? Cell phone? Sat phone? Is the connection secure? You are talking about billions of dollars to do 911 with remote control heavy jets, not impossible, but a fantasy which beats 19 terrorists who used a fake hijacking to fool all of us. Much cheaper to find 19 nuts who will cut throats of Americans without hesitation and 4 failed pilots who with flight training then retro-fit planes you can't modify in the first place because you don't own them.

It is true, if you put a new box on my plane, we don't go - and if you find a pilot who will, he is not the pilot you want.

On 911 not a single plane was remotely flown, the evidence says 19 terrorists attacked the flight deck - the dying testimony of the people on board.

The irony of your post, the test flight you show, as the 707 type airframe starts a dutch roll, which it appears the remote pilot has no clue how to stop at low altitude and the 707 misses the target crash attitude and place - you showed a failed test, they missed; oops. Okay, the test was really on the fuel additive, so the test was not a failure, the remote flying was a failure.

Why would UBL do it, spend billions when he can spend tiny amounts hidden as student flying cost? How does 911 truth ignore the 19 terrorists when they make up fantasy based on fake Circumstantial nonsense and BS Coincidences :-
You can't flight test anything on commercial jets flying passengers. There goes that discussion. ... the remote planes are a cover for the real culprit the CD fantasy.

 

[Oystein]

...there is much evidence that Boeing has already installed such an interface without asking their clients and law suits have ensued ending in large fines.

That evidence is where?

We now have the ability to remotely fly a plane and also theoretically the means to take over total control from the plane itself and cause everyone on board, including crew and highjackers, to become passengers. From then it would be possible to interupt the oxygen supply of course, with obvious results. Crew, passengers and 'patsy highjackers' alike being helpless.

I do not see that a remote control would control oxygen supply. I am not even sure the pilots could interrupt oxygen supply. Any evidence this is possible without major andobvious manipulations that no aircraft technician could be fooled to believe that this was anything but a malicious scheme?

...It isn't widely known but in the year before 9/11 seven senior technicians from Raytheon were taken from their normal duties and seconded to a secretive task based in CA. They were instructed to not discuss any details even with family. ( Grieving relatives revealed this) These people were senior experts in cutting edge technology in the emerging field of unmanned drones and remote flying. (Raytheon went on to become world leaders in this technology and were granted contracts worth many millions if not billions post 9/11.)

Correct, this isn't known. How do you know this?
-> Evidence, please

All seven of those Raytheon experts were passengers on three of the 9/11 highjacked planes and died that day.

Raytheon had an office in WTC2 - 91st floor. Impact zone.

I do remember that some Rayethon employees were among the victims, but would like to see evidence they had the same names as those above.

Raytheon also rented approx 9 sq ft of space in WTC1 - some kind of cabinet. Close to impact zone.

Evidence?

Discuss :- What if ...

hmmm.

What if they were honest men who would have been on the 'phone to the FBI in minutes if they had watched 'their' planes fly into the towers.

There were phone calls from the cabins, do you remember? Or are we to assume that those were faked to?
From this we know that passengers weren't unconscious.
Those technicians would have known much better from their experience inside the plane if it had been hijacked remotely without hijackers present.

What if they had to be prevented from doing that in an elegent manner. What if, on 9/11, they had been told to fly on those planes as observers of a development test of the system.

You mean competent aircraft technicians would be cool to fly in planes with heavy, security relevant modifications without the airline, their maintenance crews and pilots aware of it? Far fetched.

What if the two Raytheon locations in the towers housed some kind of homing beacon to be used in conjunction with the onboard equipment.

Would the seven Rayethon experts have designed the system to fly into a homing beacon and not have suspected that this is a way to destroy the airframe? Preposterous.

All of the last part is pure conjecture and speculation of course. As 'evidence' it is non existant.

Yes. And without evidence, so is the first part.

But the information before that is relevent to the discussion, and that causes some people to muse over the various questions raised in the 'discuss' paragraph.

I may consider that once the information is backed with some evidence.

 

[TWCobra]

The narrative of the day does not gel with your speculation.

All means of communication from the four aircraft would have to be deactivated. None of the calls received from passengers and flight attendants mention anything about pilots being unable to fly their aircraft due to mechanical problems.

The hijackers themselves were recorded on the CVR of UA93 as receiving an ACARS message regarding the WTC attacks.

The 757/767 flight control system is not Fly-by-wire. It is a direct physical linkage from the control wheels to hydraulic actuators which move the flight controls. Therefore you have widened the conspiracy even further due to the requirement for fitment of an elaborate second system of servos and electromechanical linkages to all the major flight controls, and an isolation method for the primary controls. This system would need hydraulic power, so an isolation method of the three hydraulic systems would be required to use them, or some sort of diversion of output from some of the pumps installed.

All this on aircraft that are regularly maintained by mechanics who would presumably have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

There is no evidence to suggest these aircraft, from two different airlines, were anything but standard 757/767s being used in routine service.

 

[Mick West]

Dont try to lure me into going off-topic please. You would then 'start a conversation' .

Well, how does it fit in with the actual evidence of the day then? I'd presumed you view the evidence of the day as being consistent with controlled demolition? Is there anything at all that happened that day that physically suggests remote control?

 

[Keith Beachy]

... We now have the ability to remotely fly a plane and also theoretically the means to take over total control from the plane itself and cause everyone on board, including crew and highjackers, to become passengers. From then it would be possible to interupt the oxygen supply of course, with obvious results. Crew, passengers and 'patsy highjackers' alike being helpless. ...

Interrupt the oxygen? Who is on oxygen, everyone is breathing air. The oxygen is for emergencies, and the pilots and crew have walk around bottles. Did you mean depressurize the plane; adding another gadget to the long list of BS gadgets needed to remote control a 767/757 stock line commercial aircraft. Then you have to mess with the oxygen... What altitude were the planes at, what it the time it takes to get all the crew and passengers asleep. How do you deal with the walk around bottles? aka portable bottles? Do you think the crew would notice the depressurization? In the military we train to recognize our hypoxia signs, and go for the oxygen. We go to 25,000 feet in an altitude chamber and take off our oxygen masks, and experience what we would for real - we have to take care of ourselves to go back on oxygen. A crew would immediately report a depressurize as an emergency and immediately descend to below 18,000 feet, Radio Calls would be instant, NOW. How do you stop this in four planes, the instant Emergency report?

Ask some pilot questions before you make up the nonsense part. VFR flying is the easy part, the systems knowledge, the flying procedures, and weather flying, and other areas are why we need pilots, the VFR flying could be done by a kid off the street better than the terrorist pilots flying, all without training.

Remote control is possible (after major modifications, etc.), there is zero evidence for remote flying on 911.

The plane is pressurized to 5,000 to 8,000 feet with air, not oxygen, so you meant depressurize, or something. Do you make up this as you go, it appears the only research was to find the failed crash of the 707 remotely flown to a miss.

Back to the evidence, this is solid evidence flight 77 and 93 were hand flown; thus 77 and 93 were not remotely flown. The FDR is the evidence, and if the FDRs for 11 and 175 had been found, they would show no remote control.

So the "highjackers", were hijackers on drugs, or what.

 

[Redwood]

The narrative of the day does not gel with your speculation.

All means of communication from the four aircraft would have to be deactivated. None of the calls received from passengers and flight attendants mention anything about pilots being unable to fly their aircraft due to mechanical problems.

The hijackers themselves were recorded on the CVR of UA93 as receiving an ACARS message regarding the WTC attacks.

The 757/767 flight control system is not Fly-by-wire. It is a direct physical linkage from the control wheels to hydraulic actuators which move the flight controls. Therefore you have widened the conspiracy even further due to the requirement for fitment of an elaborate second system of servos and electromechanical linkages to all the major flight controls, and an isolation method for the primary controls. This system would need hydraulic power, so an isolation method of the three hydraulic systems would be required to use them, or some sort of diversion of output from some of the pumps installed.

All this on aircraft that are regularly maintained by mechanics who would presumably have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

There is no evidence to suggest these aircraft, from two different airlines, were anything but standard 757/767s being used in routine service.

I'm pretty sure that our conspirators would want to test fly these modified aircraft to see that everything works and not just cross their fingers and hope. Presumably they would have a test facility in a remote area, adding another layer of complexity to an already insanely complex conspiracy.

 

[jaydeehess]

The thread title asks for evidence that isn't there - or it would have been shown many years ago. What can be shown however is some circumstantial and coincidental 'evidence', and that is the reason that the question is being discussed in the first place.

First of all, I find it disappointing that both pilots and laymen in here find it hard to believe in even the technical ability to remotely fly a large plane in 2001. With that mindset it is obviously hard to move forward to consider the use on 9/11 if it is thought that it's not possible in the first place.

Even cursory research reveals that remote control of a large Boeing had already been developed many years before 2001. Here is a wikipedia entry showing that a test in 1986 involved a remote takeoff and approach to impact. Such flights were most likely still pilot operated, just remotely, and not pre-programmed computer routes so that an FDR would still show minor jiggles from hand flying. As did the Pentagon FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration

Now that the hurdle of the technical possibility has been overcome .

Except it was attempted again in 2012 and again the location of impact was significantly off.

Except much the same was tried again in this decade, this time with a 727, and again despite low speed the remote pilot was unable to land in the planned manner.
http://www.examiner.com/article/boe...shes-mexico-during-aviation-safety-experiment
One needs to ask, why is it harder to land a large aircraft properly than a small radio controlled model. After all radio controlled model airplanes have been in the hands of hobbyists for 40+ years.

In both cases these aircraft were moving slowly with greater time available to make corrections than the WTC aircraft which were approaching the buildings at around 500 mph.
Additionally;
While flt 11 had the advantage of long range, downwind approach, flt175 was in a crosswind situation and had to deal with a heavy smoke cloud. That is to say that the pilot had to decide on a path inbound that avoided the smoke. Had this been controlled from off-board he could easily have known and planned for that well ahead of arriving at NYC.

 

[TWCobra]

;
While flt 11 had the advantage of long range, downwind approach, flt175 was in a crosswind situation and had to deal with a heavy smoke cloud. That is to say that the pilot had to decide on a path inbound that avoided the smoke. Had this been controlled from off-board he could easily have known and planned for that well ahead of arriving at NYC.

The Flight paths of both UA175 and AA77 both suggest human (and substandard) pilotage as well. Both followed circuitous routes to their targets.

If you are going to fit a hi-tech means of taking over control, you may as well fit a hi-tech super accurate guidance system as well. Plenty were available at the time.

 

[jaydeehess]

The Flight paths of both UA175 and AA77 both suggest human (and substandard) pilotage as well. Both followed circuitous routes to their targets.

If you are going to fit a hi-tech means of taking over control, you may as well fit a hi-tech super accurate guidance system as well. Plenty were available at the time.

Pretty much what I was getting at. If its hi-tech remote control or preprogramed GPS feedback control, then those two flights should have followed as direct a flight path as possible with continuous weather data input or internal accelerometer input to compensate for winds. I have found that semi autonomous large reconnaissance drones (which are still orders of magnitude smaller and lighter than a 757/767) contain sophisticated wind drift compensation. (borrowed, iirc, from cruise missile guidance systems) Instead, as you point out, what we see is indicative of a person frantically trying to compensate for mistakes. Flt 175 had to decide how to approach the WTC area and avoid smoke from tower 1, then made continuing adjustments for crosswind without seemingly recognizing why he kept drifting sideways. Flt 77 flight path indicates that the pilot fid not identify his target until a straight in run was no longer possible and had to make a descending turn before lining up with the Pentagon. That plane's DFDR also shows a pilot that was not smoothly operating the controls but rather was sawing the yoke around and kicking the pedals to keep the building in the windscreen.

In addition, we have two examples of remote pilot control of a large aircraft, one in the 1980s and another in 2012 in which they both failed to land where, or in the attitude intended. Translating that to a remote pilot attempting to hit a building at four times the velocity of those two examples would seem to severely reduce the chances of a hit.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I found an interesting article that unmanned aircraft. I accept it's not referring to a 757 that "allegedly" hit the Pentagon, but it does provide a good example of how maneuverable unmanned aircraft can be.....

"Boeing has announced that it has retrofitted a number of retired Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets with equipment enabling them to be flown remotely without a pilot. In conjunction with the US Air Force, the company recently flew one of these unmanned jets, performing combat maneuvers and a perfect center line landing.

The converted F-16, one of many that had been "mothballed" for 15 years at a site in Arizona, was controlled remotely by two US Air Force pilots located at a ground control facility. During the test flight, the plane cruised at 40,000 ft (12,200 m) and reached speeds of Mach 1.47. It then performed a series of maneuvers, including barrel rolls and a "split S" (where the pilot rolls his aircraft upside down and flies a descending half-loop, achieving level flight in the opposite direction at a lower altitude).

The unmanned jet took off from a base in Florida and flew to the Gulf of Mexico, and was trailed at all times by two chase planes monitoring its course. "It flew great, everything worked great, [it] made a beautiful landing – probably one of the best landings I've ever seen," said the project's chief engineer Paul Cejas. Should the need have arisen however, the F-16 was equipped with a ground-operated self-destruct mechanism.

One of the major advantages of not having a pilot on-board a jet fighter, is the ability to stress the plane to higher limits without fear of losing human life. During this flight however, the aircraft was only tested at 7Gs of acceleration even though an unmanned, fly-by-wire F-16 should be quite capable of performing maneuvers at 9Gs."

http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-f16-jet-unmanned-drone/29203/

[...]

 

[Mick West]

As noted before, we've landed spacecraft on the moon by remote control, so nobody doubts remote control is possible, to a degree. The question was if there was any evidence it was used on that day.

Since this thread seems to be going in circles, I'm closing it.