This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 The Queen Bee was superseded by the similarly named Queen Wasp, a later, purpose built, target aircraft of higher performance.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 -
Never let it be said I am incapable of proclaiming "Mea Culpa" when presented the facts.
Here is H.L. Mencken:
"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy."
However, Mencken didn't live to see the Wall Street of today and how pervasive it is in all of our lives.
There are werewolves in Wall Street....and their hair is perfect. (RIP Warren Zevon)
The first part about morons and their conspiracy theories....spot on for Truthers.
Mencken was nothing more than a deluded elitist, devoid of substance or logic... a mere tool.
You quoting Mencken, in defense of Wall Street, on this site, at this time... are you trying to make a joke out of yourself?
If you had a shred of common sense, you would understand that the two quotes fit perfectly together - in your quote Mencken is actually raging against the use of critical thinking and independent judgment - he needs it in order to sell the nonsense he talked about in the first quote - very consistent... in defense of Wall Street, no less!
<Sigh>
Here is my refutation of the portion of Menckin's quote in which he defends Wall Street...
However, Mencken didn't live to see the Wall Street of today and how pervasive it is in all of our lives.
There are werewolves in Wall Street....and their hair is perfect. (RIP Warren Zevon)
The last bit about their hair is perfect is simply poking a bit of fun at the banksters and giving a hat tip to the late, great Warren Zevon.
Here is where I agree with Menckin about assigning blame to an unprovable paranoid conspiracy
"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts.
And in my own words.....The first part about morons and their conspiracy theories....spot on for Truthers.
I did not want to bifurcate the quote just to make a point about the idiocy of Truthers. It is easy enough to find the quote and post the whole thing and accuse me of not posting the entire thing.
Hence my explanation of what I agree with and disagree with.
Instead you think it was a group of men, who most of are still proven to be alive, who were paid by the US government, who NEVER logged ANY flight hours, that flew jumbo jets into buildings that were built to withstand the just mentioned, and that the towers turned into a cloud of dust? And building seven? You believe the lie because you are stupid, ignorant, and conceded. And your trail of false logic proves this, or shows you have a motive to lie. Move along.
Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon, earned his FAA Pilot's Licence in April 1999. He had officially logged more than 250 hours before 911. The other pilots were also trained in the US. They had also done time on commercial jet flight simulators, something that only required a willingness to pay before 911.
The architects of the towers considered a impact by the largest airplane in service at the time the towers were designed, which was the Boeing 707, a plane with a fully loaded weight of 257,000 pounds. As terrorism was not a consideration at the time of design, the architect concern was for an aircraft in a normal approach for landing, which would be affected at a speed of 160-190 kph.
The 911 aircraft were traveling above safe operational speed, and were estimated to have struck at speeds of 400-450 kph. 757s are approximately the same weight as a 707, but the 767 is 100,000 pounds heavier. The speed and weight differences would result in much greater force.
The steel columns of the towers were not concrete encased, but had supposedly been sprayed with a fire retardant. The NIST report theorized that the impact would have severely damaged the retardant cover and left the steel vulnerable to the fires started by the 19000 gallons of Jet-A aboard the planes and further fed by the office fixtures and furniture.
Still alive? Care to back that up? Your sources, of course, must be infallible, yes? I think you are trying to play above your pay grade here. Perhaps you should "move along". Of course, I might be "conceded".
You know I respect your oninion so there is no need for you to be cute.
Atta was not trained to fly.
How did Building Seven fall? Into it's own footprint.....
It's the cui bono, stupid
No, my friend.....it's the Chaz Bono !
LOL !
Which flavor do you drink? Lime or Wildberry?
Sharkleberry Fin baby
stupidity is the people behind this thinking that its going to just go away. go long blood, and soon.