reply to post by Donny 4 million
Well, OK. I'd never heard of "Tom Flocco" before, nor "Hank Schwarz". What little I could find was not, shall we say, very complimentary.
"Flocco" seems sketchiest, but this darn hotel computer won't let me go to his site...it's content-blocked for some reason.
Perhaps others have heard this "A-3" story?? Since it was dated some years ago, I'm wondiering if it's already been proven false.
Rest of it, the story, seems quite a reach. For instance, when it stated they had "a billion dollars" to modify the A-3, sure that was hyperbole,
but the intent was money was no problem, correct?
Well, if they had that technology, to retrofit an airplane that was basically 1950s-era, why didn't "they" instead grab an old B757 from a
boneyard?? By 2001 there were quite a few retired airframes out in the desert, including some B757s. THAT way, the parts would match perfectly!!!
Same thing, no missile needed, full of fuel, "remote control" into target, and mission accomplished. Basically, except for the complication of
trying to make it remote controlled when it wasn't originally designed to be, it seems simpler than the "plan" with an A-3.
Except, the whole THOUGHT of it stinks, the very thought of our own Government concocting such a scheme and actually doing it smacks of a very,
very implausible scenario. And, again, the narrative from "Flocco" just raises suspicions all over the place. It doesn't pass the "logic
Something else about remote control --- it's not as easy as you might think. Pilots are used to sensory cues, when flying. Full-motion simulators
come close, but they do it by tricking the inner ear.
The amount of classified abilities that may exist? They are showing the UAVs now, bweing flown in the Middle East, in surveillance activities,
forward support and such. Are they weaponized too? Probably. But, I just cannot imagine anyone being given the order to conduct the attacks against
the Pentagon that day. Again, it just doesn't wash.