New Operation Northwoods Theory Twist : Laser Guided Plane, Tower 7, and the WTC Observation Deck

reply to post by weedwhacker


Okay, making a correction here, weedwacker.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

SKL, I really think you should seriously re-examine this part of you OP:

...the theories behind the scenes, and remote controlled vehicles.

Your quoting me above, was incorrect in how you interpreted what I stated.

See below my quote of the whole sentence and then I will explain the error.

Quote from : SKL's Sentence :

This came out of left field for me, with zero evidence other than the angle of Tower 7 and that picture from the WTC Obsevration deck, and my knowledge of all of those Wikipedia links and the theories behind the scenes, and remote controlled vehicles.

Okay, I will explain my sentence in its entirety, so as to bring illumination.

SKL : This came out of left field for me...

What I had come to me because my finding was quite unexpected.

SKL : ...with zero evidence other than the angle of Tower 7 and that picture from the WTC Obsevration deck,...

I have no evidence but when I looked at the angle of the picture something struck me as odd.

SKL :

and my knowledge of all of those Wikipedia links and the theories behind the scenes, and remote controlled vehicles.

But my knowledge of the information contained within the links I provided and my knowledge of politics, how behind the scenes political decisions influence activities that we as citizens have to see, hear, and live by, after politicians make their decisions, and that I have knowledge of remote control vehicles.

All levels of remote control vehicles.

Does that make my original post clearer for you now?

Language is one of those fickle things if someone mistakenly misses something, even in the way they stated it, confusion ensues, but my content, context, and intent in that one sentence may have caused some of the confusion between you and I specifically, meaning we probably agree more so along the lines about some of the information posted about here in this thread.

I hope we're on the same page now.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


OK, SKL....I know where you're coming from, but I still have to say I find it implausibly unlikely that, as I mentioned, a stock Boeing 767 (or 757, for that matter) could be converted into any kind of remote control --- at least not as easily as you seem to believe.

Now, I'm intrigued and curious about your knowledge of:

All levels of remote control vehicles.

We have another ATS member who is a mechanic (excuse me, 'maintenance technician' is more politically correct) at a major U.S. airline that happens to operate both the B-757 and B-767. Perhaps he can weigh in with his knowledge and expertise on the mechanical challenges that would be presented in converting a machine not originally designed for remote control capabilities. I can only address the perception from a pilot's viewpoint, with experience on the airplanes in question, of the difficulties involved, and I can address the limitations of the autoflight system, if one were to infer that IT could be utilized for that purpose.

If I understand your theoretical concept also, it involves allegations of a possible 'laser guided' facility installation on the roof of WTC 7, resulting in the need for the destruction of WTC 7 to hide that evidence. I question that, as well, because of the time element involved. Surely IF any such plan had been in place, there was ample time for someone to have removed and hidden any evidence of equipment, without the dramatic flourish of a building's destruction? Just thinking logically, here.


Finally, back to the airplanes, vis-a-vis the Boeing 767.

If you weren't already aware, the 767 does NOT require normal electrical system operation in order to keep flying. IOW, a total electrical failure, while certainly a hindrance to normal procedures, does not cause an immediate crash, or disable the airplane's ability to fly, and to be controlled by an onboard pilot.

However, any alleged RC system, installed as a retrofit, would need electrical supply to operate, and unless it was provided with its own source (a concept that entails even more incredulity, and further complicates any such installation) then any attempted "take over" by remote could be easily thwarted by pilots onboard. Just removing electrical power would do that.

Just so you know I'm not talking out of my butt, here, there was an actual incident of a dead-stick Boeing 767 landing, in Canada, in 1983:

www.time.com...

(Reason for the fuel starvation was a simple misunderstanding, confusion with the math between gallons and litres...and dispatching with inoperable/unreliable fuel quantity gauges. Actually, very sloppy procedures of verification, lots of blame to go around...)

Anyway, even IF you wish to argue that the "remote control" could be wired to the Hot Battery Bus, we have circuit breakers that can disable that, too.

(And, the battery doesn't have sufficient energy anyway, except for bare necessities).

Just some food for your thoughts.










[edit on 14 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

according to Barry Jennings, he said both towers were still standing and a huge boom beneath him took out the stair well. guess what guys.... you have to blow the stairwells first ... they are the strongest part of a building. after all they are designed for emergency exit.
and yes, the current view I have of this thing going off, was debated on
www.letsroll911.org with Phil. and here it is.

we believe that they were going to fly 3 planes into WTC complex.
they needed to bring both towers down to clear flight path into WTC7.
and of coarse we still have not proved Jets were used believe that or not.
tower two then tower one and for the grand finale seven.
the smoke believed to be coming from wtc 7 is actually coming from
WTC 5 which was an inferno where as 7 minor - moderate.
and guess what ? - 5 did not collapse. WTC 7 was slated to drop - in the morning - we think the prep 4 bombs took out the wiring and it took a few hours to figure out where the wires were disconnected. and around 5 pm they decided to just pull it and call it a day. so at 5:20 they pulled WTC7.
*without explosives


[edit on 14-1-2010 by Anti-Evil]

Very nicely put together and it does make sense. Have you done any searches for other videos that could reveal the same IR painting?
(note) if it's a machine it can be made to operate remotely, no matter what it is. S&F

reply to post by Anti-Evil

we believe that they were going to fly 3 planes into WTC complex.
they needed to bring both towers down to clear flight path into WTC7.
and of coarse we still have not proved Jets were used believe that or not.
tower two then tower one and for the grand finale seven.
the smoke believed to be coming from wtc 7 is actually coming from
WTC 5 which was an inferno where as 7 minor - moderate.
and guess what ? - 5 did not collapse. WTC 7 was slated to drop - in the morning - we think the prep 4 bombs took out the wiring and it took a few hours to figure out where the wires were disconnected. and around 5 pm they decided to just pull it and call it a day. so at 5:20 they pulled WTC7.
*without explosives

Brillant plan - going to hijack more planes to knock down WTC 1 & 2 to
get at WTC 7. Nothing like adding more complications to the plan.

Another thing WTC 7 is ringed by numerous other buildings of 40- 50 floors

So how are you to get around all the obstrucations?



130 Liberty (aka Bankers Trust or Deutsche Bank) is directy to south

Millenium Hilton is to east

World Financial Center 3 (and its mates) are directly to west

Verizon (140 West) is right next to WTC 7 - across a narrow alley

So explain how one flys plane into WTC 7 ?

View of WTC on Sept 21, 2001 - 10 days after. Notice tight cluster of buildings

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

OK, SKL....I know where you're coming from, but I still have to say I find it implausibly unlikely that, as I mentioned, a stock Boeing 767 (or 757, for that matter) could be converted into any kind of remote control --- at least not as easily as you seem to believe.

Now, I'm intrigued and curious about your knowledge of:

All levels of remote control vehicles.

Okay, no one says they had to take a stock plane, there is the plane junkyard.

Jet's Resting Place "Aircraft junkyard"


Northwest Airlines 747-200s at Tokyo Narita Airport


Aircraft Boneyard, Davis Monthan A.F.B Tucson,Az.


Now, they keep those old airplanes, jets, and heavy duty equipment carriers around for one simple thing.

Parts.

By keeping them in locations such as those videos like they do, they are ensuring they retain re-usability, higher quality structural integrity, and as well they are technically, "off the books" as far as airliners are concerned.

Yes, they keep a record of them, but they are like an old car, that has PARTS written on the title, meaning they are technically not allowed to be used, but nothing stops a criminal from using them, just like the organization that could have potentially done this for 9/11.

Laws are for the law-abiding citizens, they do not stop a criminal, because it's just words to them.

Washington D.C. thinks like that, with a lack of ethics, morals, or religious beliefs.

How do you think all of those politician's always end up in scandals, like Bill Clinton?

"Ah did nawt have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky."

What he meant was she was giving and he was receiving, he did nothing, she did all the work.

What exactly do you want to know about remote control?

D.A.R.P.A. specializes in remote control devices, and they created the Internet.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Remote Control

A remote control is a component of an electronics device, most commonly a television set, used for operating the device wirelessly from a short line-of-sight distance.

The term remote control can be contracted to remote or controller. It is known by many other names as well, such as clicker, didge, flipper, the tuner, the changer, or deroot deroot.

Commonly, remote controls are Consumer IR devices used to issue commands from a distance to televisions or other consumer electronics such as stereo systems, DVD players and dimmers.

controls for these devices are usually small wireless handheld objects with an array of buttons for adjusting various settings such as television channel, track number, and volume.

In fact, for the majority of modern devices with this kind of control, the remote contains all the function controls while the controlled device itself only has a handful of essential primary controls.

Most of these remotes communicate to their respective devices via infrared (IR) signals and a few via radio signals.

Television IR signals can be mimicked by a universal remote, which is able to emulate the functionality of most major brand television remote controls.

They are usually powered by small AAA or AA size batteries.

Operation Northwoods


Now, we go back to the original history of "remote control" to Tesla.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Remote Control : History

One of the earliest examples of remote control was developed in 1898 by Nikola Tesla, and described in his patent, U.S. Patent 613,809, named Method of an Apparatus for Controlling Mechanism of Moving Vehicle or Vehicles.

In 1898, he demonstrated a radio-controlled boat to the public during an electrical exhibition at Madison Square Garden.

Tesla called his boat a "teleautomaton".

In 1903, Leonardo Torres Quevedo presented the Telekino at the Paris Academy of Science, accompanied by a brief, and making an experimental demonstration.

In the same time he obtained a patent in France, Spain, Great Britain, and the United States.

The Telekino consisted of a robot that executed commands transmitted by electromagnetic waves.

It constituted the world's first apparatus for radio control and was a pioneer in the field of remote control.

In 1906, in the presence of the king and before a great crowd, Torres successfully demonstrated the invention in the port of Bilbao, guiding a boat from the shore.

Later, he would try to apply the Telekino to projectiles and torpedoes, but had to abandon the project for lack of financing.

The first remote-controlled model aeroplane flew in 1932, and the use of remote control technology for military purposes was worked intensively during the Second World War, one result of this being the German Wasserfall missile.

By the late 1930s, several radio manufacturers offered remote controls for some of their higher-end models.

Most of these were connected to the set being controlled by wires, but the Philco Mystery Control (1939) was a battery-operated low-frequency radio transmitter, thus making it the first wireless remote control for a consumer electronics device.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
We have another ATS member who is a mechanic (excuse me, 'maintenance technician' is more politically correct) at a major U.S. airline that happens to operate both the B-757 and B-767. Perhaps he can weigh in with his knowledge and expertise on the mechanical challenges that would be presented in converting a machine not originally designed for remote control capabilities. I can only address the perception from a pilot's viewpoint, with experience on the airplanes in question, of the difficulties involved, and I can address the limitations of the autoflight system, if one were to infer that IT could be utilized for that purpose.

Sure, bring him on board this thread.

I think you may be over-thinking everything though.

The people who would do this, if they did, would spare no expense, and would set all the plan into motion a decade in advance.

I am not saying either of us are right or wrong, I am however saying, think about the kind of money that came out of the budgetary shakedown from Congress, after 9/11.

If they knew in advance they might get several hundred million, would they not be willing to spend $10 million to retrofit this type of stuff, or ask people from D.A.R.P.A. to do it, off the books?

Quote from : Wikipedia : 7 World Trade Center : Tenants

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.

Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).

Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).

The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.

Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.

I smell money, power, and something else, oh yeah, potential for advance notice, and motive, means and opportunity to commit the actions, and use it as a means to shakedown a whole lot of money from Congress.

Odd, is it not, the S.E.C., the people who would call into question the alleged selling of airline stoc, was hit on 9/11 is it not?

Odd as well, is it not that I.N.S. was hit, then conveniently becomes I.C.E. , the people who should have been keeping those very alleged "terrorists" out of America, was hit on 9/11 is it not?

Odd again, apparently, is it not that Federal Home Loan Banks got hit and they are people who received Savings and Loan Money, and the Bush families integrity was brought into question about the S & L Scandal, remember?

Insurance for the building alone would be a lot, loss of structure, loss of equipment, loss of face at being attacked.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If I understand your theoretical concept also, it involves allegations of a possible 'laser guided' facility installation on the roof of WTC 7, resulting in the need for the destruction of WTC 7 to hide that evidence. I question that, as well, because of the time element involved. Surely IF any such plan had been in place, there was ample time for someone to have removed and hidden any evidence of equipment, without the dramatic flourish of a building's destruction? Just thinking logically, here.

No, not quite what I meant, because those devices are of a smaller module design now.

Something akin to the size of a laser range-finder.

No, I am not saying the laser range-finder, only the size of it.

Here the device is, shown in a Pauly Shore movie, I know the movie is silly, but the device is very real.

In the Army Now


I'm still looking for the device, I forgot what it was called, but it was shown in quite a few movies, like the above movie.

Now, are you getting all of what I'm trying to say?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Finally, back to the airplanes, vis-a-vis the Boeing 767.

If you weren't already aware, the 767 does NOT require normal electrical system operation in order to keep flying. IOW, a total electrical failure, while certainly a hindrance to normal procedures, does not cause an immediate crash, or disable the airplane's ability to fly, and to be controlled by an onboard pilot.

I will have to search through my ten years of back issues of Popular Mechanics, if you do not supply me with a link.

I was an avid reader as a teenager, which is where I learned heaps about the military technology available.

Often I would go to the library to look this stuff up and quite a bit goes back to Tesla.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, any alleged RC system, installed as a retrofit, would need electrical supply to operate, and unless it was provided with its own source (a concept that entails even more incredulity, and further complicates any such installation) then any attempted "take over" by remote could be easily thwarted by pilots onboard. Just removing electrical power would do that.

Read my above comments, you're over-thinking it, which is fine, it's inspiring me to look up the information.

There are many avenues to "take over" a current guidance system of a jet.

The military would be the best equipment, however, I am not saying they did that, only answering you.

I am still fleshing some of these ideas out as well, I know a lot of it, but your replies are helping refresh my memory.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just so you know I'm not talking out of my butt, here, there was an actual incident of a dead-stick Boeing 767 landing, in Canada, in 1983:

www.time.com...

(Reason for the fuel starvation was a simple misunderstanding, confusion with the math between gallons and litres...and dispatching with inoperable/unreliable fuel quantity gauges. Actually, very sloppy procedures of verification, lots of blame to go around...)

Anyway, even IF you wish to argue that the "remote control" could be wired to the Hot Battery Bus, we have circuit breakers that can disable that, too.

I'm sure you're not talking out your butt, or I would call you Ace Ventura.

I get what you mean.

But, there are many things that are still unknown.

Maybe through the information in this thread and other 9/11 ones I've done, I will do a Operation Northwoods "remote controlled plane" thread, all on it's own.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(And, the battery doesn't have sufficient energy anyway, except for bare necessities).

Just some food for your thoughts.
[edit on 14 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

Just read the above and I think you may see where I was coming from.

Over all, I am right down the middle, Osama was probably connected, but so was Cheney.

A covert intelligence fundraiser if I ever saw one.



[edit on 17-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Very nicely put together and it does make sense. Have you done any searches for other videos that could reveal the same IR painting?
(note) if it's a machine it can be made to operate remotely, no matter what it is. S&F

You mean like the laser target designator?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/febd67b6a2bb.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from : Wikipedia : Laser applications : Laser Target Deisgnator

Another military use of lasers is as a laser target designator.

This is a low-power laser pointer used to indicate a target for a precision-guided munition, typically launched from an aircraft.

The guided munition adjusts its flight-path to home in to the laser light reflected by the target, enabling a great precision in aiming.

The beam of the laser target designator is set to a pulse rate that matches that set on the guided munition to ensure munitions strike their designated targets and do not follow other laser beams which may be in use in the area.

The laser designator can be shone onto the target by an aircraft or nearby infantry.

Lasers used for this purpose are usually infrared lasers, so the enemy cannot easily detect the guiding laser light.

Found in the video before the one I showed to weedwhacker, in "In the Army Now"

In The Army Now


The name was there and the device is shown.

US soldiers Paint For Laser Guided Bomb *Warning - Graphic Language*

*Warning - Graphic Language*

Now, they can "paint a target" for bombs, missiles, and even to run vehicles, so why not a jet?

Guided Missile Aproach Terrorist Bastards in a Hotel


Remeber those videos from the First Gulf War?

What if we were being indoctrinated into seeing the imagery without being given proof?

Just a thought.

The video below while amateur at first, goes up in scale as the person speaking begins using laser guidance terminology.

Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11 (original)


[edit on 17-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Excellent thread, SKL.

I asked a similar question about six months ago.

It's amazing how many people dismiss Operation Northwoods like it was some kind of theoretical plan that would never happen and that has no connection to 9/11.

When every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signs off on a false flag terrorist attack, it's certainly not just theoretical and is very related to 9/11, just like Gulf of Tonkin, Oklahoma City and a plethora of other government murders and deceptions.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Excellent thread, SKL.

I asked a similar question about six months ago.

It's amazing how many people dismiss Operation Northwoods like it was some kind of theoretical plan that would never happen and that has no connection to 9/11.

When every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signs off on a false flag terrorist attack, it's certainly not just theoretical and is very related to 9/11, just like Gulf of Tonkin, Oklahoma City and a plethora of other government murders and deceptions.

Thank you, GoldenFleece.

Ah yes, the Gulf of Tonkin, another perfect example of what military will do to get us drawn into combat, a false pretext, motivated out of greed, power, and controversy.

I love your signature by the way.

I would rather know the truth than be lied to.

Which is why I do not sugar-coat the proverbial crap.

Sugar-coated crap, is still crap.

Not sugar-coated, but Mythbusters proved you can polish a turd.

Mythbusters Polishing a Turd


[edit on 18-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


SKL, you write a lot, but you don't respond to simple questions (unless they are someone sucking up...)


I find yor responses, though vebose, to be lacking in context.

Specifically, the remote control aspect.

I DO UNDERSTAND the concepts of remote control, what it CAN and CANNOT accomplish, and why it was NOT well suited for hte 911 scenario.

You hand-waved that away, with talk about the bone-yards of old, retired airplanes (which, BTW, anyone in the aviation industry KNOWS about, it's not some sort o secret, NOR is it a revelation!!!)

(Many afficianodos and museum hunters find these bone-yards....they are NOT secret!!!!)

Oh, and you pointed it out yourself!!! PARTS!!!

The machines destined for the desert, for storage, are parted out (because as anyone knows, the parts, witin limits, are worth more than th total).

BUT, reason they are stored there (besides the cheap cost of land) is hte environment-----low humidity.

HOWEVER, as anyone who has stored any vehicle knows, it isn't easy (or cheap) to resurrect a stored vehicle.

SKL, once an airplane has been sent to the desert it suffuers one of various fates:

It may be bought by someone (like Tom Cruise or John Travolta, or the King of Sulatn, who has more money than brains) and made flyable again.

SOME of those desert destinies (love that? I will copyright it) are never going to fly again, for whatever reason...airframes worn out (cycles) for example, but, again, the PARTS are good to go (under certain circumstances, and in various markets around the World, but not in the US!!!!!)

'Capisce', yet????

I'm not here to rain on your parade, SKL.

Far from it.

I simply wish to inject a note of caution into your rampant speculation, when it NEEDS some throttling....

"Connecting the dots" is what has been happening ever since 11 September, 2001 (even when the dots DON'Y connect, people have found ways....)

This is not dissimilar from the baloney tyhat surrounds the "Apollo Moon Hoax" nonsense, or the "Pearl Harbor Conspiracy" BS....it is part and parcel of the 'conspiracy momement', and itis usually bogus.

Sorry.

Thoise who know stuff, can see through it all....

From the 2002 book, "Facing Our Fascist State"

By Don Paul

Home Run and Global Hawk

If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the United Germany in the early 1990s -- a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago -- told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

Andreas von Buelow said that this technology was named Home Run.

The German went on to give his Tagesspeigel interviewer his overall perspective of the 9/11/01 attacks: '"I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry…. I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprang out of the mind of an evil man in his cave"'

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state…. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

Now, who or what would you trust for aerial missions as demanding as those of "'9/11'" (or trust to fly an airliner from one airfield in California to another in Australia): The Arab students who are described above, or the Global Hawk or Home Run technologies?

www.sfcall.com...

It's also been reported that Lufthansa was so concerned about this American technology that they stripped the flight control computers and the "Home Run" system from their Boeings.

"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by GoldenFleece]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

SKL, you write a lot, but you don't respond to simple questions (unless they are someone sucking up...)


I find yor responses, though vebose, to be lacking in context.

Specifically, the remote control aspect.

If you actually knew anything about me, you might know I hate suck ups.

I actually appreciate people disagreeing with me because I learn from the disagreement.

I did ask a simple question, what specifically you wanted to know about "remote control".

I even supplied some information since your question was vague and open-ended.

I am not upset in the least but the topic of "remote control devices" covers a long history, so in my asking for a specific area of what you were wanting to know was my way of narrowing down my answer, so I would be less verbose, something you obviously do not like, and I will not apologize for that nor do I expect an apology just asking for more clarity so I can better answer your questions.

That's all.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I DO UNDERSTAND the concepts of remote control, what it CAN and CANNOT accomplish, and why it was NOT well suited for hte 911 scenario.

Okay, well if you had stated that, and not left an open-ended question, I might have been able to better answer, and now I know, and just because you know the topic does not mean you have successfully refuted me, only that you know more than you originally let on since you and I have never had lenghty discussions about any topic prior to this or in this regards on "remote control" or 9/11.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You hand-waved that away, with talk about the bone-yards of old, retired airplanes (which, BTW, anyone in the aviation industry KNOWS about, it's not some sort o secret, NOR is it a revelation!!!)

I did not hand wave that away, I was unaware of what level of knowledge you had, and since your question was not more direct with regards to you query, I had to wonder at how to best answer you.

As for the bone-yards, I never stated it was some secret, at all.

Anyone who watches the History Channel or television knows them.

I mentioned them as to where the structure of the potential "remote" jet could have been gotten from, and I say again, potential, never once have I stated that I knew for a fact that it was a definite action.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(Many afficianodos and museum hunters find these bone-yards....they are NOT secret!!!!)

Oh, and you pointed it out yourself!!! PARTS!!!

The machines destined for the desert, for storage, are parted out (because as anyone knows, the parts, witin limits, are worth more than th total).

BUT, reason they are stored there (besides the cheap cost of land) is hte environment-----low humidity.

HOWEVER, as anyone who has stored any vehicle knows, it isn't easy (or cheap) to resurrect a stored vehicle.

Yes, I agree with that assessment, but like you claimed I sidestepped your question, you have sidestepped my question, about the amount of money, which would be a motive, to make money through an alleged, not claiming it is a definite, again, covert fundraiser, you have to spend money.

So, before you go claiming I sidestep a question, be sure and not do the same.

Fair is fair, and I have answered your questions, based on the specifics within them.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
SKL, once an airplane has been sent to the desert it suffuers one of various fates:

It may be bought by someone (like Tom Cruise or John Travolta, or the King of Sulatn, who has more money than brains) and made flyable again.

SOME of those desert destinies (love that? I will copyright it) are never going to fly again, for whatever reason...airframes worn out (cycles) for example, but, again, the PARTS are good to go (under certain circumstances, and in various markets around the World, but not in the US!!!!!)

'Capisce', yet????

Yes, I get it, do you get what I'm saying though?

John Travolta happens to live close enough I could go visit him, and I know about his private runway, and Cruise could if his mommy would let him, and as for the King of Sultan, if he's a billionaire, that means he would be capable of resurrecting a scrapped jet.

Yes, some will never fly again, and some do, I have seen a few shows where people literally buy out ten jets in advance just to get the parts, and occasionally they can as well take those ten jets and tear them down and get two functional jets.

And it takes a lot of money to do it too.

Again, I did mention spending money, for the people I have alleged to have pulled off the biggest heist of the century, to make money.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not here to rain on your parade, SKL.

Far from it.

I simply wish to inject a note of caution into your rampant speculation, when it NEEDS some throttling....

"Connecting the dots" is what has been happening ever since 11 September, 2001 (even when the dots DON'Y connect, people have found ways....)

This is not dissimilar from the baloney tyhat surrounds the "Apollo Moon Hoax" nonsense, or the "Pearl Harbor Conspiracy" BS....it is part and parcel of the 'conspiracy momement', and itis usually bogus.

You're not raining and there are no parades, far from it, I did state you're actually helping refresh my memory, so again, thank you for making me remember.

There is no rampant speculation, I have read many books on the topic, from Jim Marrs, to various other authors which I have mentioned their books both in this thread as well as other 9/11 threads.

As for the Apollo Moon landing, hoax or not, it was a spectacular event.

I do not generally go into the Moon landings.

As for Pearl Harbor, well that's a whole other ball of wax, and the fact that we did have advance notice has been proven time and time again, because people miss certain key details.

I can prove that, Pearl Harbor, with 100% certainty, it was an inside job.

Only through a lack of sharing certain key information though, as well as F.D.R. luring Hirohito into a trap.

Similar in fact to 9/11 and the claims that Intelligence Agencies slipped up.

Convenient excuse if you ask me, that they slipped up, shoddy excuse too.

Yet, people within those organizations have come forwards, and have been threatened.

A few key people come to mind.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry.

Thoise who know stuff, can see through it all....

Okay, well I am not sorry, and I am not sure what you are sorry about.

So as to not go off on a tangent I will not go into Pearl Harbor in it's entirety right now.

I will however give you a few links and you can look up the information on your own.

I will do a thread on it some day when I am bored.

What do the following have in common?

American Volunteer Group

Purple Code

Office of Naval Intelligence

Pearl Harbor

Project for the New American Century

The answer is simple, the A.V.G., being fighter pilots, were in China under Chiang Kai-Shek kicking the Japanese to Hell and back prior to Pearl Harbor, as civilian contractors, O.N.I. had broken the Purple Code and did not want the Japanese to know, so Pearl Harbor was in danger and F.D.R. knew, but F.D.R. wanted us involved in WWII and the American people did not, and the guys at P.N.A.C. copied that set of events with pulling off 9/11.

Through Osama bin Laden being the intermediary, the cut-out or convenient patsy, or unwilling person walked into a wolf-trap.

Now, I will leave you to do your own research, because I know the set of events by heart.

About Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and like the A.V.G. being "civilian contractors" (read mercenaries), so were the Mujahideen during the 70's and 80's during kicking the Russian's out of Afghanistan, and then the hornets nest thoroughly stirred up with our Government's often shifting foreign policy, Osama either willingly decided to attack, or was a part of the plan as a cut-out.

Now I know I say either or, but that is where the lack of paperwork comes into play, and where the history books, the books that were sourced throughout this thread and others, and the covert nature of secret funding comes into play.

Now yes, I did leave Wikipedia links there, but there is so much more information there.

No harm, no foul, and no animosity towards you, weedwhacker, I like you.

[edit on 19-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Sorry, GF....that is bunk, and it's perpetrated by those who merely wish to make a name for themselves, as they bank on the fact that many, many who aren't in a position to understand will fall for it.

When I have more time I will address the inconsistencies/mistakes/misconceptions in that.

(BUT, it is ridiculous beyond measure to think that an autopilot could somehow "take over" the airplane to the extent that the pilots, who are onboard and aware, would be "helpless"!!!)

That belongs in the bailiwick of Hollywood fiction action/adventure movies....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Sorry, GF....that is bunk, and it's perpetrated by those who merely wish to make a name for themselves, as they bank on the fact that many, many who aren't in a position to understand will fall for it.

Yeah, we've heard it many times -- you're the only one who's capable of "understanding" everything from 9/11 to HAARP to chemtrails. I'll take the word of Germany's former Minister of Technology/Defense Dept. over you any day.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
When I have more time I will address the inconsistencies/mistakes/misconceptions in that.

Don't bother. I've come to the conclusion that you're neither an honest or sincere poster. Instead of spending your life trying to debunk what's become vastly overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, do something productive with your life.

The fact that no one got fired for the events of 9/11 and that people who actually tried to speak out, within the agencies responsible for stopping it, is itself something that should be a red flag for most people.

Many Government people were threatened and or reprimanded for that alone.

Meaning that they were told not to tell the truth.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Now, are you referring to "bunk" about 9/11 or what I can prove about Pearl Harbor?

I have read many books on both, and you're still not successfully de-bunking me.

I honestly don't think weedwhacker reads books - he just regurgitates what he thinks he knows. If he ever read a book like "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" -- from a decorated WWII veteran who served under Bush Sr., now a WWII historian who consults for the BBC/NHK Japanese TV and who spent over a decade researching 200,000 FOIA documents -- he'd never spout off about Pearl Harbor again.



[edit on 1/20/2010 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


SKL, all bickering aside ( if certain other members would stop pontificating on things they don't understand ) I think just perhpas, in connecting the dots, you've found more than originally existed.

And before I get the "pot is kettle" comment slapped at my face, let's try to factor out the "Northwoods" and "Pearl Harbor" distractions.

It is indisputable that some over-zealous Cabinet (those who had, likely, connections to Eisenhower's warnings about the 'MIC', so their motivations were more than just National Security....I say, they had financial impetus as well...) members in the Kennedy Administration proposed "Operation Northwoods".

However, as I understand it, "Northwoods" was offered as intended to be hoax, no actual injuries (at least to "friendlies"). Back in those days, before the instant information available to just about everyone in the Free World, it mmight have been doable.

"Pearl", after all of these years???? We get vague and unsubstantiated claims, perhaps because of the ready availibilty of so much information via the Internet (combined with the inevitable fact that those who were THERE are dying off, just as is the case with the "Holocaust Deniers' Movement" --- it is a simple fact that history can be 'revisionist', unless you guard against it with real facts, and not suppostions and innuendos, made by certain people with unknown or suspect agendas....)

I'd prefer that Pearl Harbor be relegated to its own thread, because the circumstances are grossly different, even IF (and that's a big 'IF') you wish to make the argument for pre-cognition of that attack, on the part of the Roosevelt Administration. (And if you can't understand WHY the circumstances were so different, read a history book...)

Now, with that foreshadowing, here are your post and comments that triggered this reply:

The fact that no one got fired for the events of 9/11 and that people who actually tried to speak out, within the agencies responsible for stopping it, is itself something that should be a red flag for most people.

I agree with that assessment, up to the 'red flag' point...

The Intelligence failures, not only as the (still fairly new) G W Bush Administration (and whilst trying to remove/destroy everything the Clinton Administration had accomplished prior) went back INTO the Clinton era, as well, so many, many there are also culpable in those mistakes, and that's what I see as the 'CYA' activity that has gone on ever since. THAT, the 'CYA' (and I kept it in acronym, for the youngsters...but everyone should understand what I meant) ... the 'CYA' is just a case of job preservation at the least, and escaping gross negligence charges at the worst.

Oh, and lots and lots of finger-pointing...."NMJ" --- that one's clean, it's "Not My Job", a relative of "NIMBY".

Remember, in the "Responsibility Department" flow-chart, when the dirt hits the fan those near the bottom do what they can do throw it back up, those at the top (with the most power, usually) keep shovelling it downward, and only those who manage to keep clean will survive the taint.

Many Government people were threatened and or reprimanded for that alone.

Yes. See above. Those who cannot 'play' the system, and skate free of the blame, sometimes take a version of the 'fall'. It's called "Politics". Whether in an office with three people, or in the United States Government, with all of its hidey-holes...

Meaning that they were told not to tell the truth.

Ah!!! Here's the crux of misunderstanding about how that game was played.

I've given you the outline, up above.

But, when you've made up your mind into the notion that some sort of 'super-power-higher-ups' came in and cajoled, threatened, or in any other way held sway over what WOULD and WOULD NOT be 'said'...well, ATS IS touting itself as a 'conspiracy' site, so that sort of thinking is lopgical in this site's context, BUT you should have substantial evidence to support that idea.

I've presented a very different (and more Humanistic idea), in the sense that it follows Human behavior, without the need for a huge 'cover-up' and the very real possibility of ANY 'leaks' causing the entire thing to unravel.

Hate to be simplistic, but there's an adage (which I am paraphrasing from memory) that supposes that if two people know a secret, it is no longer a secret.

SKL, you are a thoughtful poster, and diligent in your research.

We all bring, each of us, something to this table, in examining events.

Some won't accept that OTHERS have experience, and knowledge, that doesn't fit in with their perceptions. So be it.

I merely wished to answer this post of yours, because it showed insight, and happened to seem to mesh with my interpretation of events, based on what I know...


PS....I won't add here about R/C, except to say I'd suggest you investigate, in the research into the remote control aspects as regards aviation, the SPEEDS involved when you consider all of the various drones and existing technology that offers R/C.

It IS a burgeoning technology, but....look closely at the dates, and the aspects, (and how limited it is, in many respects).

I can only give you direction, from the perspective of a person who actually has flown the Boeing 757/767, and has a great deal of experience in their design (from having to know the airplanes that we fly) and having personal knowledge of how various autoflight systems (autopilots) work, how they are utilized by pilots, how they're programmed (for smoothness, and passenger comfort) and why those systems, as installed on a Boeing, would NOT be conducive to the R/C ideas that you've been studying, not without SUBSTANTIAL changes, which would involve not ONLY the servos that operate the flight controls (and the engine controls), but also the software parameters. These are not things that could be accomplished easily, not even WHEN you imagine vast amounts of unlimited money available, because it's simply unreasonable!!!

(Think, for example, just what's involved in something as basic as Microsoft deciding to keep offering new, and allegedly 'better', operating systems for PCs every few years. HOW MANY people are involved in re-writing the software, each time??? AND they are simply expanding on an already-in-use-platform, not completely altering many basic formats...I mean, look into the compaines that provide software for the autoflight systems on the various Boeing products, to get a clue...)

Here....the type of FMC software that is currently in use, at least on Boeings, had its origin back in 1984. It has been extensiviely enhanced (but maybe not in the way that you'd hope) ever since:

www.b737.org.uk...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

edit in:

another link:

www.projectmagenta.com...

Just to show the evolution of the "Glass cockpit" concept, as seen through many eyes. (In this case, SO MANY wannabe 'pilots' who have used sourcing, or whatever, to re-create the experiences of an actual airplane...and the technology that's a part of it, for hob by purposes).

NOT to be confused witht he real thing...which is likely part of the problem....jus' sayin'!!!

I edit, but I leave so many typos....ah, well....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the sort of 'integrated' cockpit that made older, more traditionally-oriented pilots blanche at the technology....these are guys who couldn't stop their VCR clock from flashing!

OK, they were pilots, they weren't ALL that stupid....but, we are used to visualizing things in ways that the computer engineers who wrote (initially) the software didn't understand.

The concepts evolved, with feedbacks from pilots, FAA, etc....and the technology, at least in representing and interpretation for pilots IN the cockpit, has improved.

Still, though, when it comes to how well any autoflight (and by proxy, the 'R/C' controls) can accomadate higer speeds, well it's all a combination of human reaction time, even IF enhanced by any computer ttech.

Right now, the slower the better, in terms of R/C.

That's my point, in this post (secondary)...the two Boeing 767s, (AA 11 and UA 175) would not have been controllable UNLESS an actual Human was manipulating the controls. There is just no replacement for the sensory apparatus that we all possess, no machine has ever yet replaced the Human brain, and motor skills required.

Regardless of how much 'technology' you imagine, for the R/C pilot, short of full-immersion (which, AFAIK, does not yet exist....except in the movie "AVATAR") and full tactile and g-force and every other sense imaginable, even the full-motion, best in the world simulators we airline pilots train on only come close...(and, yes, I know, I know....the Militry has more and better, even so far as to re-create g-forces, but in ALL cases even a simulator eventually reaches a limitation.....)

I hope I have given you a substantial amount to chew on.....




















[edit on 21 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 21 January 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I honestly don't think weedwhacker reads books...

???

This is where the Professor just sits there....and the silence deepens....

'nuf said 'bout that!!!!

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Remember, the United Nations had a front seat view of 9/11 in progress.

Not really.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a9a4ee15d3a.jpg[/atsimg]

People in Hoboken, NJ were closer to ground zero than people at the UN building.

[edit on 21-1-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


Watched the WTC towers burn from Linden NJ - some of my co workers
on upper floors watched the second plane slam into WTC 2