It's Nut-Ball Conspiracy Time! or, Were The WTC Planes Remote-Controlled?

[Mr Manifesto]

You be the judge (http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html)

While in the Air Force I worked on heat-seeking, video, electro-optical, and laser-guided air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles and bombs. As a profession today I work in computer network engineering. As a hobby I am an avid fisherman very familiar with the concepts of GPS. From my perspective it would be a piece of cake to build a back door access into an aircraft's avionics and sieze control of the vessel.
We do it all the time with computers. It uses the Telnet protocol and programs such as LanDesk, which are widely available. With it we take control of a remote computer (remote control) and fix it while the end-user sits there and watches their mouse cursor move all over the screen, windows opening and closing, and their computer will not respond to any input they give it. And now we can do it in a wireless setting using hubs and switches that work with IR light to transmit digital signals. This is really ancient technology in the computer industry. The need to control computers half way around the world started as soon as Al Gore invented the internet. lol GPS technology is nothing more that electro-optical technology taken to a much higher degree. E/O and laser guided weapons rely on an energy source to "paint" the target. The weapon uses the reflection as a homing beacon which guides it directly, and with the nth degree of precision, to the target. Using GPS fish locating equipment I can return to a spot in the middle of a 10,000 acre lake exactly. Not close, exactly. To guide a plane to a target the size of the WTC would be no sweat.
All that said, as unbelievable as people would like that scenario to seem, it violates me much less than the one that is being peddled. Imagine a 25-30 year old man that has never driven anything bigger than a family sedan, and never driven over 55 MPH. Then take this man and put him in an 18 wheeler in a city he does not know. Tell him he must drive that truck across town at 80 MPH to an address he does not have a map to find. Just tell him it is southwest from where you are. Make him do this at the rush hour. Then if he does arrive at the correct address, he must back that truck up to the loading dock and do it perfectly the first time. And he must do all this without incident of any sort. Then realize the pilots were flying an aircraft 2000 times larger than anything they had ever flown before. And they were not flying 50% faster than they had ever flown, but 400% faster. Then factor in that these young men knew they would be going to meet Allah. Imagine how their hearts would be racing and their hands shaking. And we get three direct, dead-center hits. That is what stretches my imagination, not the remote control part.

I wouldn't mind knowing how the plane that hit the pentagon managed to do a controlled spiral 7000 feet into the building when it was piloted by someone who had only been to a cessna/piper training school. Not that I'm saying it was remote-controlled, I just want to know how someone did that.

[WildCat]

So who installed all of the remote control equipment in those planes w/o the airlines noticing?

That is one wacko web site you linked to! If my cursory look is accurate, the US engineered the 9/11 attacks in order to steal the oil in the Middle East? And not a drop has been stolen yet, what incompetent boobsthe US is! :p

[Evolver]

So! Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft & Rumsfeld were sitting on the floor in front of the TV, each with a PS2 controller. Bush crashed his plane in Pennsylvania, and Cheney told him to go out for more snacks. Bush comes back in with a big bowl of pretzels.

And a good time was had by all.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by WildCat


That is one wacko web site you linked to! If my cursory look is accurate, the US engineered the 9/11 attacks in order to steal the oil in the Middle East? And not a drop has been stolen yet, what incompetent boobsthe US is! :p

Yes, we engineered a disatser which will cost hundreds of billions when all is said and done.

Two wars which will also cost hundreds of billions.

And now we're importing oil INTO IRAQ!

When exactly is the benefit of this alleged scheme supposed to start rolling in?

[Tmy]

That anology is off. I can drive a car but cant drive an 18 wheeler. But Ifthat 18 wheeler was already doing 70 mph and I jumped into the drivers seat I could drive down the highway just fine. Its not like the hijackers flew the plane from take off. And can it really be that hard to hit the biggest buildings in the country?

Drunken airplane piolts land these planes wh ease all the time.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
That anology is off. I can drive a car but cant drive an 18 wheeler. But Ifthat 18 wheeler was already doing 70 mph and I jumped into the drivers seat I could drive down the highway just fine. Its not like the hijackers flew the plane from take off. And can it really be that hard to hit the biggest buildings in the country?

Drunken airplane piolts land these planes wh ease all the time.

You can barely jump to logical conclusions. How the hell are you gonna jump into a truck going 70?:p

Sorry. I just didn't think it was fair for Jocko to be having all the fun with you.

But the site does give a lot of good insight into things. Unfortunately it's only insight into what happens when someone has way too much time on their hands.

[Tmy]

I know the real reason your picking on me.............cause your RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!:p

[Michael Redman]

Not exactly dead-center hits. One of the WTC planes almost missed, and the plane that hit the Pentagon crashed short, and probably thereby caused a lot less damage than a direct hit woult have.

Plus, these guys did know the cities they were navagating in, and their targets were visible for many miles, unlike the hypothetical address.

Expanding in Tmy, a better analogy might be getting behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler already going down the highway at 80, and crashing it into a toll booth a mile down a streatch of highway you're already well aquainted with.

[Luke T.]

As a hobby I am an avid fisherman very familiar with the concepts of GPS.

Now THAT's a solid foundation on which to build a conspiracy theory! :D


From the same link:

Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo ...

NO ONE is ready to fly solo after only three times in the air! But it isn't because they can't steer the plane, which any moron can do, it is because they can't take-off and land by themselves. That is the hard part, and the part the terrorists didn't have to worry about.

Now here's another good one from the link:


"The giant Caterpillar bulldozer, used by the Israeli military to destroy Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, now comes with a controversial new feature: remote control."
Israel to Raze Palestinian Homes with Robot Bulldozers

So because technology exists to remotely control machines, that is evidence that the airplanes on 9/11 were remotely controlled. Riiiiiiiiiight...

Watch out! I am remotely controlling every car on the highway! Don't distract me!

[Ladewig]

And now we can do it in a wireless setting using hubs and switches that work with IR light to transmit digital signals.

So does this statement imply that each airplane had an infrared light receiver attached to its bottom and that the transmitter assigned to each plane was able to stay within line of sight of the appropriate receiver for the entire hijacking?

lol GPS technology is nothing more that electro-optical technology taken to a much higher degree. E/O and laser guided weapons rely on an energy source to "paint" the target.

Laser-guided weapons have sensing arrays on the front of the missle that allows computers to make adjustments in a fraction of a second to the flight controls. Are we to believe that laser-sensing arrays were attached to the front of four commercial airliners and no one noticed?

Furthermore, there were scores of phone calls from the planes which all provided the exact same description of hijackers killing some people and entering the cockpit. Did this master-planned conspiracy include the ability to spoof phone calls and generate artifical voices in real-time?

As for the ability of the Arab pilots, Micheal Moore speculates that they might have received some jet training by the Saudi air force and the flight school stuff in the U.S. was a cover to distance the Saudi government or factions within the Saudi government from the attack. I have a hard time accepting that speculation.


Yes, we engineered a disatser which will cost hundreds of billions when all is said and done.
Two wars which will also cost hundreds of billions.
And now we're importing oil INTO IRAQ!
When exactly is the benefit of this alleged scheme supposed to start rolling in?
I would add that the attacks nearly drove the U.S. airline industry into the ground and messed up the entire economy.

[Ladewig]

from the posted website
Among the improvements made to Wedge One: Blast resistant windows and brick backup walls behind the building's limestone outer facade. These inner walls contain a metal fabric mesh similar to the mesh used in vehicle air bags. This mesh was designed specifically to CONTAIN DEBRIS FRAGMENTS [emphasis theirs] in the event of a blast.

So the military installed a metal fabric mesh because they feared an attack on the Pentagon, therefore the military knew an airplane was going to hit the Pentagon in late 2001. [dr.evil] Riiiiiiiiiggght [/dr.evil]

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tmy
That anology is off. I can drive a car but cant drive an 18 wheeler. But Ifthat 18 wheeler was already doing 70 mph and I jumped into the drivers seat I could drive down the highway just fine. Its not like the hijackers flew the plane from take off. And can it really be that hard to hit the biggest buildings in the country?

Drunken airplane piolts land these planes wh ease all the time.
Easy to fly almost any plane.....landing is one of the hardest things to do. They didn't need to, obviously.
They also likely trained on flight simulators on PCs. I heard they used Microsoft Flight Simulator. Somewhat ironically one of the scenarios on mine has the plane taking off from an NYC airport which flight path goes almost directly into the WTC. From there you need to bank only a tiny bit to go right into it.
I believe they didn't hijack from that airport because they wouldn't have had time to take it over before passing the towers.
Years ago using a flight simulator on my C64 I used to crash into the Sears Tower all the time to end the program since I hadn't, and haven't to this day been able to master landing. I remarked at that time how easy it would be for a bad guy to do this.

[demon]

"Watch out! I am remotely controlling every car on the highway! Don't distract me!"

Ah mister military, revealed family man, etc, etc etc, etc, want to say anything about the 10,000 plus dead Iraqis your kin, kith and other assorted baby killers did the last year.
I`d be intersted in the truth this time too.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well DUH!!!! Of course the planes were remote controlled. I thought everyone knew that?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by demon
"Watch out! I am remotely controlling every car on the highway! Don't distract me!"

Ah mister military, revealed family man, etc, etc etc, etc, want to say anything about the 10,000 plus dead Iraqis your kin, kith and other assorted baby killers did the last year.
I`d be intersted in the truth this time too.

This has got to be the grand bull-moose of non sequiturs. I think it's an early contender for an award. Way to go, Demon!

[Jocko]

Originally posted by subgenius


Years ago using a flight simulator on my C64 I used to crash into the Sears Tower all the time to end the program since I hadn't, and haven't to this day been able to master landing. I remarked at that time how easy it would be for a bad guy to do this.

Yes, I remember back when we considered that funny. Ever try to split the antennas on the Hancock Building? It never let you do it.

My father taught me to fly a Cessna about 12 years ago. Never went for my license, only solo landed once. Nearly killed myself. Of all the hours I spent learning that plane and how to fly it, 90% had to do with takeoff and landing. Flying by visual rules (I think it was called?) almost anyone could steer a plane well enough to hit a building with minimal training.

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
"Watch out! I am remotely controlling every car on the highway! Don't distract me!"

Ah mister military, revealed family man, etc, etc etc, etc, want to say anything about the 10,000 plus dead Iraqis your kin, kith and other assorted baby killers did the last year.
I`d be intersted in the truth this time too.

Two questions.

1) Who the hell was this directed to?

2) What the hell are you talking about?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jocko


Yes, I remember back when we considered that funny. Ever try to split the antennas on the Hancock Building? It never let you do it.

My father taught me to fly a Cessna about 12 years ago. Never went for my license, only solo landed once. Nearly killed myself. Of all the hours I spent learning that plane and how to fly it, 90% had to do with takeoff and landing. Flying by visual rules (I think it was called?) almost anyone could steer a plane well enough to hit a building with minimal training.
Flying is fun and easy. Still haven't found as good a FS program as I had on the C64. I was running the same missions, at the same time, as in the Gulf War I. Same armaments, and aircraft. Stealths, A10's, cluster bombs, laser-guided, etc.
Fairly easy to steer into a building, as they did.
There are other devastating terrorist acts that are also easy, that I don't wish to share for fear of giving them some ideas. Let's just say I am amazed they haven't thought of/done them so far.
Thank Bob.
BTW, Washington Post is reporting that on one of the cancelled Air France flights to LA, among the people that didn't check in for the cancelled flight was a trained pilot. Possible target: Las Vegas.

[Aoidoi]

From my perspective it would be a piece of cake to build a back door access into an aircraft's avionics and sieze control of the vessel.So, let's see. You'd need access to the four planes, intimate knowledge of the computers systems (they aren't running windows, after all), some method of testing your device to determine it works, and then at least four people capable of remotely piloting a commercial airliner. I fail to see how this is more of a "piece of cake" than getting guys on board with little razor blades.

We do it all the time with computers. It uses the Telnet protocol and programs such as LanDesk, which are widely available.... and which is entirely incapable of controlling a commercial jet. Telnet is text only, and every remote access product I've used involves lousy lag and less than precise controls. So you'd have to be pretty darn good to fly a plane remotely using any of those.

Not to mention all those protocols are run over land lines which have little loss rather than an open air interface subject to all sorts of interference.

With it we take control of a remote computer (remote control) and fix it while the end-user sits there and watches their mouse cursor move all over the screen, windows opening and closing, and their computer will not respond to any input they give it. Control of a remote computer running a commercial operating system is not the same as remote control of a real time avionics system.

And now we can do it in a wireless setting using hubs and switches that work with IR light to transmit digital signals.Look Mr. Expert guy, get your head out of your *ss. Wireless hubs and routers do not use IR. They use RF. Your TV's remote uses IR, your wireless LAN does not because it would be really, really stupid as a way to network more than 2 things at a time. Many laptops have an IR port to wirelessly transfer files, but thay only works between 2 computers on LOS and only up to a meter or 2 apart. Frankly, if you don't realize the difference between IR and RF signalling I seriously question any conclusions you then leap to.

This is really ancient technology in the computer industry. The need to control computers half way around the world started as soon as Al Gore invented the internet. lol GPS technology is nothing more that electro-optical technology taken to a much higher degree.Uh, no. GPS is a result of a constellation of satellites transmitting RF signals which can be used to determine location. It has nothing to do with IR, nothing to do with "opto" anything. You do need LOS to the satellites, but it's not using IR or a laser or anything that would be considered an optical transmission. It also has nothing to do with remote control of computers, as your kinda crappy writing indicates.

E/O and laser guided weapons rely on an energy source to "paint" the target. The weapon uses the reflection as a homing beacon which guides it directly, and with the nth degree of precision, to the target.Aside from a really weird use of "nth degree" this is accurate, if utterly irrelevant.

Using GPS fish locating equipment I can return to a spot in the middle of a 10,000 acre lake exactly. Not close, exactly. Not exactly, plus or minus a couple meters depending on your equipment. Close. There is a margin of error in everything. Also utterly and completely irrelevant.

To guide a plane to a target the size of the WTC would be no sweat.From the cockpit, I agree. From whatever weird telnet IR/laser guided/GPS connection he's postulating I wouldn't give it very good odds.

All that said, as unbelievable as people would like that scenario to seem, it violates me much less than the one that is being peddled. Imagine a [ridiculously inaccurate proof by metaphor]Ah, and now he gives up entirely on actually trying to make a case and makes stuff up. Covered by others.

That is what stretches my imagination, not the remote control part.I think he sprained something.

Ok, now that I've pointed out that this guy is conversing from his posterior: sure you can control a plane remotely. The military already does it with those unmanned drones. However, you need significant bandwidth with little lag to do it effectively over a long distance. Not to mention cameras and feedback of some sort. The NYC ones maybe you could take over near the WTC and crash them visually, but what about the Pentagon and Penn? The planes would be out of range in no time.

If you're going to argue that the US military did it, why bother with the remotes? Put a box on the autopilot controls that overrides the manual controls and pilots the plane automatically to some GPS coordinates. Simpler than this remote control garbage, and works for all 4 planes. Doesn't explain the cellphone calls or any of the other evidence of hijackers, but at least it's got fewer technical problems to overcome.

Mind you, given utterly ridiculous testing that commercial flight control systems go through I find it next to impossible that any external controller would be able to completely take over the plane and lock the pilots out. This is not a system which is designed to be flexible, it's a system designed to keep functioning under any circumstance and to keep the plane safe no matter what fails. It's not quite like installing backorifice or whatever the remote control software of the moment is.

[Agammamon]

This guy is completely right except about the IR data transmitters.

What really happened is that the CIA smuggled a Bluetooth enabled cell phone with wireless internet access onboard, leaving it turned on. Then all the CIA guys had to do was log onto their computer at work and send the data through Verizon's network (at 14.4 kbps I might add) to the phone which then used BT to connect into the planes BT network and then with that link established they hacked into the autopilot and crashed the planes, all while sitting safe and comfortable in Langley.
I mean why else do they tell you to turn off cell phones? because it interferes with flight equipment? Get real man, wake up and smell the conspiracy!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Agammamon
This guy is completely right except about the IR data transmitters.

What really happened is that the CIA smuggled a Bluetooth enabled cell phone with wireless internet access onboard, leaving it turned on. Then all the CIA guys had to do was log onto their computer at work and send the data through Verizon's network (at 14.4 kbps I might add) to the phone which then used BT to connect into the planes BT network and then with that link established they hacked into the autopilot and crashed the planes, all while sitting safe and comfortable in Langley.
I mean why else do they tell you to turn off cell phones? because it interferes with flight equipment? Get real man, wake up and smell the conspiracy!

Bluetooth? can we lock up Ion now as a conspirator?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Troll


Bluetooth? can we lock up Ion now as a conspirator?

Utterly ridiculous. No one uses bluetooth with the new wireless networking standards. I'd be more inclined the planes were programmed in PASCAL.

[ktesibios]

This whole "the planes on 9/11 were remote-controlled" thing has been around for quite some time.

The first instance I saw was from noted British woo-woo Joe Vialls, who claimed that the 767 had a built-in secret system called "Home Run" which was intended to allow a ground controller to take over the controls of a hijacked aircraft, lock out the flight deck controls and bring it home safely, and that this system had been used by *insert evil alphabet-soup agency of choice here* to commandeer the planes and fly them into their targets.

His theory suffered from the same degree of technical speciousness as the one in the OP of this thread, as well as some serious dramaturgical problems. (Anyone interested can find a copy at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/home_run.htm ; if you can find the follow-up article, which alleged that the kid in Florida who stole a light plane and crashed it into an office building and an Italian businessman who suffered a heart attack while flying and crashed into a building were victims of a remote-control takeover of their planes the dramaturgical problems should become apparent.)

These notions will probably be around forever, or at least as long as there's an Internet. As the absurdities of one version become obvious, new tweaks will appear that try to get around the technical, organizational and dramaturgical flaws and allow the placement of blame on whichever branch of The Powers That Be the theorist considers the Root Of All Evil.

If the 9/11 commission chaired by Thomas Kean gets its investigative way, it seems not unlikely that some parts of TPTB are going to turn out to merit a good spanking for negligence, arrogance and plain dumbnitude, but I guess that's not good enough for some folks.

BTW, Agence France-Presse is reporting that French intelligence has not found evidence in support of the attack scenario put forward by American intelligence agencies, and that the most suspicious person among the suspect passengers, a Tunisian with a pilots license, was found to be in Tunis, not France. They're still digging, but my thinking on a final verdict is that it won't pay to take the word of one media source- or one government- at face value without checking others.

It's probably a good thing that the two countries' intelligence agencies are challenging each others' evidence and conclusions. That approach pays off in science, and this is another area where discovering external reality is the real goal...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Agammamon

I mean why else do they tell you to turn off cell phones? because it interferes with flight equipment? Get real man, wake up and smell the conspiracy!

Well, in the sense that it interferes with the remote access of the flight equipment, yes. :D <--- For aerocontrols

[Ed]

And meanwhile, while these jets are enterents in an RC event, the pilots sort of sit there and muse on the fact that they have lost control, or their communication is shut off or it is overridden, somehow, and actors take their places or the tower(s) are subverted.

Or a bunch of loony A-rabs commit suicide.

William of Occam, pleased to meet cha.

[The idea]

First of all, it is well-known that airplane travel is the most dangerous form of travel ever invented. That is intuitively obvious since so many people are afraid of flying. In fact, even Ray Bradbury was afraid of flying, so I rest my case.

Now, people are easily conned by so-called "numbers" and "statistics" since they appear to be "scientific." So phony numbers are invented and the airline industry and the media hide information about the regular plane crashes that are constantly occurring.

Now, it is well-known that many people commit suicide, especially Japanese pilots. Because Japanese food is now being eaten throughout the western world, even non-Japanese pilots are at risk of turning into Kamikaze pilots.

Thus, a scheme was hatched by a group of people who had eaten too much Japanese food and who didn't want to go on living but who wanted their relatives to collect on the insurance money. They would deliberately die in airplane crashes. However, they realized that the airlines and the media would simply cover up the news unless major landmarks were chosen for the crashes. That's why they chose the WTC and the Pentagon.

The calls made from the airplanes were designed to trick people into thinking that the hijackings were unplanned.

How's that for an explanation?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by subgenius

Years ago using a flight simulator on my C64 I used to crash into the Sears Tower all the time to end the program since I hadn't, and haven't to this day been able to master landing. I remarked at that time how easy it would be for a bad guy to do this.

.. And yet, for some reason it was almost impossible to crash into a carrier at sea. For me anyway.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well, in the sense that it interferes with the remote access of the flight equipment, yes. :D <--- For aerocontrols
Actually, it doesn't interfere w/ the airplane at all. It's an FCC rule, not the FAA. The reason is that cell phone towers transmit your signal according to proximity, so the nearest tower will be the one you are transmitting from. No problem if you're going 70 mph in a car, at 600 mph the towers just can't keep up, so many will transmit the same signal and the system goes FUBAR.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by phildonnia
.. And yet, for some reason it was almost impossible to crash into a carrier at sea. For me anyway.
You have to tie one of those bandannas around your head first. ;)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well, in the sense that it interferes with the remote access of the flight equipment, yes. :D <--- For aerocontrols

Whaddya know... my name was mentioned.

I've been avoiding this thread since 12/26... I just came in today to see if it had drifted off towards Palestinians vs. Israelis (we need our own version of Godwin's law for this forum, I think) and I find out folks are talking about me.

Sort of...

We fly remote controlled aircraft all the time in my lab. Those out in the field doing so have no need to avoid using their cell phones. If anyone was wondering.

MattJ

[Skeptic]

And "Mr. Manifesto" wonders why most people here don't seem to take his "political analysis" seriously.

Actually, "Mr. Manifesto", the 9/11 planes were not remote controlled. They were MIND controlled by the international jew-masonic-catholic-shape-shifting-lizards-aliens conspiracy.

OK, I lie. THAT story is of course just the cover story for the REAL conspirators, namely, the interstellar killer slugs from Deneb. You were never naive enough to believe the "low-salt" diet craze was REALLY intended to make people healthier, were you? It's all part of the plan to disarm us when... but I said too much already.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
And "Mr. Manifesto" wonders why most people here don't seem to take his "political analysis" seriously.

Actually, "Mr. Manifesto", the 9/11 planes were not remote controlled. They were MIND controlled by the international jew-masonic-catholic-shape-shifting-lizards-aliens conspiracy.

OK, I lie. THAT story is of course just the cover story for the REAL conspirators, namely, the interstellar killer slugs from Deneb. You were never naive enough to believe the "low-salt" diet craze was REALLY intended to make people healthier, were you? It's all part of the plan to disarm us when... but I said too much already.

Just one quick question: how dumb are you?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by WildCat

Actually, it doesn't interfere w/ the airplane at all. It's an FCC rule, not the FAA. The reason is that cell phone towers transmit your signal according to proximity, so the nearest tower will be the one you are transmitting from. No problem if you're going 70 mph in a car, at 600 mph the towers just can't keep up, so many will transmit the same signal and the system goes FUBAR.

Wrong,

Back in '95 just after I got my private pilot's license I allowed a buddy to use his cell phone in flight. I made him stop. I could hear nothing but his side of the conversation over my headset which was plugged directly into the COMM radio....but also my NAV reciever lost the VOR signal every time he spoke into the cell phone. His cell call though, went through with no problem whatsoever.

Since I was VFR and over a practice area I knew very well it was merely an annoyance. If we'd been IFR it'd have been far more than an annoyance.

-z

[Jocko]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Wrong,

Back in '95 just after I got my private pilot's license I allowed a buddy to use his cell phone in flight. I made him stop. I could hear nothing but his side of the conversation over my headset which was plugged directly into the COMM radio....but also my NAV reciever lost the VOR signal every time he spoke into the cell phone. His cell call though, went through with no problem whatsoever.

Since I was VFR and over a practice area I knew very well it was merely an annoyance. If we'd been IFR it'd have been far more than an annoyance.

-z

I gave up on flying (alright, Dad sold the Cessna, happy now?!) before the rise of cellphones, and I've been dying to know what effect they would have. Since I never learned enough to even try IFR, I guess it's moot. Still, it would have been fun watching the VOR go batsh!t.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jocko


Still, it would have been fun watching the VOR go batsh!t.

It was. :)

Getting back on subject ....


Let's entertain the illusion for one sec that it's possible to remote fly a huge airliner by Telnet terminal. :crazy:

It would have to somehow be able to take control of the auto-pilot....but the auto-pilot in any commercial jetliner is designed to turn off as soon as the control yoke is manually moved. So the pilots, seeing their windscreen fill with giant buildings did not exert any force on the controls?

-z

[WildCat]

Just bumping this up to link to this even sillier 9-11 conspiracy theory. (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

What's really scary is that if you search for "boeing 757" on Google it's the 2nd site listed, right after the official Boeing site!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by WildCat
Just bumping this up to link to this even sillier 9-11 conspiracy theory. (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

What's really scary is that if you search for "boeing 757" on Google it's the 2nd site listed, right after the official Boeing site!

I think google list sites by number of hits (or links) that they get. It isn't any sort of "endorsement".

For instance, at least a week ago, looking up "miserable failure" on google got www.whitehouse.gov as the first link...

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think google list sites by number of hits (or links) that they get. It isn't any sort of "endorsement".
I know that, what I thought was scary was the number of woo woos out there going to that site and taking it seriously.

Hopefully it's just getting hits from people looking for amusement.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I don't have a specific point by point refutation, but I am reminded of this:

http://epguides.com/TimeTunnel/cast.jpg

[The idea]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I don't have a specific point by point refutation, but I am reminded of [...]
Make sure that you don't forget about this:

http://epguides.com/SylvesterandTweetyMysteries/cast.jpg