This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
Airplanes have been flown by remote-control since 1917. As Wikipedia notes:
In 1917, Archibald Low as head of the RFC [Britain's Royal Flying Corps] Experimental Works, was the first person to use radio control successfully on an aircraft.
***
There were also [during the 1930s] remotely controlled cutters and experimental remotely controlled planes in the Red Army. In the 1930s Britain developed the radio controlled Queen Bee, a remotely controlled unmanned Tiger Moth aircraft for a fleet’s gunnery firing practice. The Queen Bee was superseded by the similarly named Queen Wasp, a later, purpose built, target aircraft of higher performance.
As the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum notes, President John F. Kennedy’s older brother flew a secret mission involving the remote-control flying of a bomb-laden airplane to attack Nazi targets inside France:
On the 31st July 1944 a U.S.N. special air unit, codenamed Project Anvil, moved to Fersfield from Dunkeswell in Devon. The mission was to involve the use of explosive-laden PB4Y-1 Liberator bombers under radio control. The crew of two, Lt Joe Kennedy (pilot), and Lt. Wilford John Willy (radio control technician/co-pilot), were to take off with 21,150 lbs of Torpex in 347 boxes and establish radio control of the Liberator by a Ventura mother-ship. Once full control was established and tested, at a pre-determined point the crew would parachute from the aircraft through the nose wheel bay emergency exit and the bomber would continue the rest of its mission under radio control, finally crashing onto the target.
In addition, Norad has been able to fly planes remotely for many decades:
NORAD (the North American Air Defense Command) had at its disposal a number of U.S. Air Force General Dynamics F-106 Delta Dart fighter aircraft configured to be remotely flown into combat as early as 1959 under the auspices of a program know as SAGE. These aircraft could be started, taxied, taken off, flown into combat, fight, and return to a landing entirely by remote control, with the only human intervention needed being to fuel and re-arm them.
As Wikipedia explains:
The Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) was an automated control system for tracking and intercepting enemy bomber aircraft used by NORAD from the late 1950s into the 1980s. In later versions, the system could automatically direct aircraft to an interception by sending instructions directly to the aircraft’s autopilot.
***
In normal operation, communications between the SAGE centers and the interceptor aircraft was relayed via radio equipment at the radar sites, which were more widely spread out than the SAGE centers themselves. A properly equipped aircraft, like the F-106 Delta Dart, could feed the SAGE directions into the autopilot and fly “hands off” to the interception.
NASA and the FAA flew a plane by remote control in 1984:
In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire.
***
On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope.
Indeed, prior to 9/11, remote-controlled planes could fly up to 8,600 miles (from the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain’s International Television News).
One day after 9/11, an article appeared on the top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
Some have speculated that remote control played a part in 9/11:
And some allege that the use of remote control could explain some of the strange behavior by the 9/11 planes.
Indeed, more than 40 years ago, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff suggested shooting down a military drone airplane, pretending it was a real airplane, and then blaming the attack on the Cubans as a way to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
Interestingly, NORAD - which is the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland - had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft".
And coincidentally, Fox TV aired a fictional drama 6 months before 9/11, in which the U.S. government intended to fly a plane into the World Trade Center via remote control and blame it on terrorists.
Note: While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate - but interesting - question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn't the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn't ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?
»
- advertisements -
You think this (911) doesn't have very real and real time effects on everything that is going on now? Bernanke and the central banks have everything to do with it: whom do you think is financing all these wars? I'd suggest you do some cursory research into the massive number of lies we've been fed. While we may never know the truth, one thing's certain: we've been lied to, and it has cost the US, and indeed the entire world, a whole lot of blood and treasure.
Since we're talking airplanes, no one in the Bush admin cold have ever imagined someone using planes as weapons.
http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html
Hello? Pearl Harbor anyone? And then there's this:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=gsis%2Ci18n%3Dtrue&cp=11&gs_id=15&xhr=t&q=project+bojinka&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=project+boj&aq=0&aqi=g1g-v2g-b1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e97cfd05dfef89c0&biw=1280&bih=685
I never could figure out how fighter jets were scrambled right away to follow golfer Payne Stewart's plane but not so much to follow several off-course, out of contact jet liners. And nothing out of Andrews AFB? Langley and Otis instead?
Caution: the rabbit hole runs deep once you start connecting the dots.
Allowing camel jockies with a rudimentary amount of jet flying skills to pull off 9/11 is one thing. I am not entirely opposed to that thought. I don't have nor have read enough credible evidence to back up this nascent suspicion, but I do not dismiss it outright.
But remote controlling planes?
Please....
And you are racist. Why am I not surprised?
http://ynotoman.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/camel-racing-in-oman/camel-jock...
I'm a racist......ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!! That's a good one ! LOL :)
Thank you Jumbotron.
Every time I manage to convince another friend/coworker of our dire fiscal/financial state, and recommend that they stay 'up' on economic developments by going to Zerohedge; I get the same response:
Once they've read something by GW, they dismiss ZH as a bunch of tin-foil hat wackos hiding in their parents basement.
I suspect the reason Tyler allows GW to post is because it makes for great theater, but his content really does relegate ZH to the lunatic fringe...
+91111
So true. The biggest impediment to getting more people to take this site serious are the total loony toon posts and then the commentary which really goes off the deepend. Its certainly plausible that we don't know everything about 9/11 and it's likely there was government foreknowledge.
But the absolute ridiculous, bizarre and delusional theories of thermite rigged buildings, radio controlled planes, smuggled out gold are the REAL disinformation which stops anyone from getting to the real truth. Bring on the junks, from the idiots here, they are a badge of honor.
There was gold stolen. The safe was craked, that was widely reported.
How did the buildings fall into their own footprints into a cloud of dust if not by thermite?
It wasn't thermite. It was termites. Nano-biotic, DARPA manufactured, remote controlled termites.
at least we can be thankful for being spared another GW cut-and-paste review of the latest nuke story; Japanese Trade Minister's Nuke comments story....
Fukushima is truly one of the biggest (ongoing) tragedies, and yet not a word of it in the news. The level of radioactivity and deterioration of the situation is staggering.
And yet we hear nothing about it. Surely someone is interested, at least a little. It's odd having to listen to Russian news to find out about Fukushima (just as odd, for a native American like myself, as having to turn on Al-Jazeera to find decent news coverage of anything important).
I spoke to a Japanese national a few days ago who said that no one in Japan is talking about it because they can't do anything about it, and that if Tokyo is becoming compromised, then "that is the end of Japan.". There is zero trust in the government over there. Zero.
In the US we have admitted to ourselves we were lied to about the reasons to go to war in Iraq (WMD), and now are simply left with the utter failure. We are not welcome, the middle east is not remade, and the oil is not flowing in the amount we would like (when the lines aren't sabotaged).
Given these now obvious, inconvenient FACTS, why do you make yourself the self-appointed garfish of the status quo?
I find the existing, incontrovertible facts of these tragedies to be so incredible, that positing a few offbeat things like 9/11 conspiracies to be expected and healthy (if not actually true).
I no longer reject things out of hand because they sound crazy. Sounding crazy is no longer a viable rejection criteria, for the simple reason that we've all
Because you've been brainwashed. Wake up.
Lol
Garfish == defender. Never post from an iPhone.
If ignorance of reality is your goal, try a drill-bit to your temple.
Ok Poolshark since you are so smart, smarter than us, what happened to Building Seven?
What happened to WTC 7? Frankly, I don't know, nor do I lie awake at night worrying about it.
But as a firm believer in Occam's Razor, the simplest and likeliest cause was the same thing that brought down WTC 1 & 2: initial major structural damage aggravated by uncontrolled fires:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=player_embedded#!
Thinking IS hard to do.
You mention Occam's Razor and then attempt to connect that to "initial major structural damage aggravated by uncontrolled fires."
You sound a lot like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk
Office fires do not bring down buildings. They never have. The CCTV tower in China torched for a day and it did not fall. A Spanish skyscraper did the same. Also, these three WTC buildings fell into their own ootprints. That also never happens.
Yet a department store in Seoul can collapse into it's own footprint for no apparent reason...........
Remote detinated by Skynet
I guess you hang out with people who are incapable of critical thinking and open mindedness. They apparently can't handle divergence of opinion or the ability to navigate through a source of truly free information (particularly the comments section).
There are many things on this site that I do not agree with but, because you post here along with others who are still asleep doesn't mean I will stop reading it.
I guess you hang out with people who are incapable of critical thinking and open mindedness.
I'm responding to you aren't I?
Poorly.
Good one ! Pithy.
Don't agree of course....but good on ya, mate non-the-less
They say, never argue with a fool, because bystanders may not be able to tell the difference, but here goes...
Do you REALLY believe that four jet airliners were commandeered by agents of the USA; in a matter of a few hours, remote-control equipment was quickly, silently, and effectively installed in all four (without being seen by anyone, and without raising the least suspicion); the entire crews of these airliners were abducted and made to 'disappear,' phone calls and cockpit transmissions from these aircraft were painstakingly faked in advance; massive quantities of explosives were carefully planted inside buildings in downtown New York (again, without being seen by anyone, and without raising the least suspicion); and that all of this was coordinated by agents of the USA (again without being seen by anyone, and without raising the least suspicion); and that Osama Bin Laden cooperated fully by agreeing to take the fall for all of this?
And not a single person to date has come forward to blow the cover off this conspiracy?
Do you really believe that not one of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who had to have been involved in such a plot wouldn't have come forward at some point in the last decade... not even a death-bed confession?
You sir, are the one incapable of critical thought.
I love the... "no one came forward..." line. Many come forward, but you dismiss them as 'conspiracy theorists'.
The problem you have is that the idea of your own government doing this to its own people is too terrible a thought for you to handle. Look around the world, there is an endless stream of evidence showing governments slaughtering their own people for increase in power, monetary benefit or ideological convictions. You seem to think that the American imperial (you still think you are a republic don't you?) government is any different than any other imperial government (when it comes to removing obstacles).
If you truly want answers to the questions you posted I'll give you some places to start your research, not sites, but information areas, you choose the source.
Who owned the WTC buildings?
Who held the security contracts?
Who held the maintenance contracts?
Just those three questions will help you on your path to the red pill.
That's all you really needed to say.
Think harder.
That's GW's and the Truther's problem.
They think harder....not smarter.
Here is the truth of 9/11.
. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
H.L. Mencken
Stupidity does not lead to well documented geostrategic goals - which are actually failing monumentally. But that is another story all together. The tricking was performed perfectly. However, the said goal of global management is blowing up in their faces.
The very signature of their hegemonic hubris.
Agreed it diminishes this site to post such off off topic drivel.
Don't let this site get taken over, you've got a great brand going on here.
There are plenty of other places for them to post.
It might be too late. ZH is beginning to get the same rep as infowars, and it is making it easier for the street and TPTB to laugh it off or outright demean it. That's too bad. Perhaps any site that gains notoriety eventually draws in the moonbats, but some sites draw the line. While I appreciate Tyler's openness and willingness to let both the moonbats and the racists have their say, there are times when self-censorship has a place, especially if one is trying to have an impact for the greater good.
Also, it is one thing to have non-contributors making comments that might be outlandish or distasteful, but to allow it for contributors more or less represents a conscious approval. I can imagine, even in a Congressional hearing, some Senator asking Bernanke a question:
Senator: "Mr. Bernanke, I read on Zerohedge..."
Bernanke interrupts: "Do you mean the website where they claim the WTC was destroyed by radio controlled aircraft?"
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha erupts across the hearing room.
"There are plenty of other places for them to post."
You too. Please move along.
As long as ignorant, conspiracy theory Truther fucktards as yourself, troll around here or until ZH becomes nothing more than a Truther site, I'll be here to call bullshit on you junior.
So move your silly ass.
To me, the most astonishing footage is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxFCKoNUgRg&list=FLSetZz2ehVUHH0okMyqu4-A&index=127
Where did the buildings go? 2 - 1300 foot building turned into a 20 foot deep hole in the ground? I suspect that there's much more going on here than we can even imagine.
Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCspDGW4ZiM
You catch my drift?
There was many times more steel than concrete in thw wtc's, you're telling me that the steel just vanished? Where is all the electrical wiring? plumbing? etc., etc.
Aha, it was David Copperfield behind 911!
Seigfried and Roy
Define "ground zero"
1. The point on the earth's surface directly above or below an exploding nuclear bomb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-RsIm4OnZM
The space aliens zapped up the remains
Marvin the Martian using his illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.
same event is now causing a rash of cancer in first responders.... radiation.
Dimitri Khalezov
I like GW's approach. Present the facts, and make no comment. Here's the One Big Fact: We'll NEVER kow the truth. It's Myth (the official version) versus Supposition.
Why is a Nazi narrating the video? Or is he Swiss? Are they behind the 9/11 conspiracy? The price of gold has gone up a lot...
So what? Really so what? So what that we can fly remote control planes?
Be careful with this "truther" stuff, any time I've seen a "truther" engage in meaningful discussion they always end up repeating dubious "facts" over and over and over again to solid evidence and logic presented against their theory.
"Truthers" seem to have lost the ability to evolve in thought.
The ratio of solid evidence to ad hominem in your post approaches 0; you seem to have failed to evolve the ability to make a meaningful point.
Personally i would rather have trains run on remote and some software (hard wireing vs radio) then planes (solar flares and all) but thats just prefrence at this level of technology.
Sure planes can be run by romote or robots but for now i think we should start with trains and go from there.
Shielding and rad-hardening processors is known science.
We got to the moon through the magnetosphere, didn't we? <ducks Buzz Aldrin's flying spacesuit boot>
funny... that pretty much sums up how I see the official story of 911... (dubious facts over and over and over).
Threats of mental institutions and other incarceration will be a later 'solution' to the 'problem' of some folks not quite being able to swallow the official version.
For any who have an interest, a live broadcast of the goings on at ground zero Sunday. It is readily apparent that there was no room for the first responders that Mayor Bloomberg banned from the ceremonies.
The good news is that there was plenty of room for all manner of politician, assorted dignitaries and other hangers on from the federal, state and local levels.
Here is the link to the live stream http://bit.ly/pKTw3S
Only in America, today's ceremony will also include James Taylor singing Close your Eyes at 9:30am and Paul Simon singing Bridge over Troubled Water at 10:30am along with cameos by Obama and Bush.