9/11 Truth: Bush Admin. sets the towers to fall, raises military budget, Iraq for OIL

El_Kabong

Saturnal wrote:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

yes, loose change is a shitty doc and uses shady sources like anonymous bloggers...

SPEEDY MCCREADY

EL KABONG???

can you please get in to a little more detail about you radio-controlled planes theory??

only because i have never heard of this theory before......

those passengers were put on airplanes that didnt have pilots?
or were those planes actually hijacked and then flown by remote control??

jlew24asu

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

EL KABONG???

can you please get in to a little more detail about you radio-controlled planes theory??

only because i have never heard of this theory before......

those passengers were put on airplanes that didnt have pilots?
or were those planes actually hijacked and then flown by remote control??

laughable isnt it? this is a great place for entertainment

SPEEDY MCCREADY

jlew24asu wrote:

laughable isnt it? this is a great place for entertainment

im serious....

i have NEVER EVER heard that theory before......

QuarterToTen

jlew24asu wrote:

laughable isnt it? this is a great place for entertainment

the best. never a dull moment on the train.

norm

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

EL KABONG???

can you please get in to a little more detail about you radio-controlled planes theory??

only because i have never heard of this theory before......

those passengers were put on airplanes that didnt have pilots?
or were those planes actually hijacked and then flown by remote control??

There is a theory that the 4 planes were empty and were crashed via remote control and the passengers were taken to some island or something like that. I can't remember all the details cuz I have enough bullshit in my head as it is.:)

jlew24asu

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

im serious....

i have NEVER EVER heard that theory before......

yea I heard it before, only here. El K start another thread proving this theory. I'm gonna have fun rippin you apart

El_Kabong

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

EL KABONG???

can you please get in to a little more detail about you radio-controlled planes theory??

only because i have never heard of this theory before......

those passengers were put on airplanes that didnt have pilots?
or were those planes actually hijacked and then flown by remote control??

here's a little bit, have ot run soon

Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) Aircraft
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

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. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with
Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

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. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.

This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist.

The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fire-proof materials, and burn-resistant windows. Crash forces were measured, and a full complement of instrumented crash test dummies was carried on the flight.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage
to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and
caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

It was not exactly the impact that was hoped for, but research from the CID program yielded new data on impact survivability which helped establish new FAA rules regarding fire prevention and retardant materials. Although proponents argued that AMK prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the CID, FAA requirements for the additive were put on the back burner.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_by_wire#Fly-by-wire


'A fly-by-wire system literally replaces physical control of the aircraft with an electrical interface...'


'Digital
A digital fly-by-wire flight control system is similar to its analog counterpart. However, the signal processing is done by digital computers. The pilot literally can "fly-via-computer". '

As the computers continuously fly the aircraft, pilot workload is reduced. It is now possible to fly aircraft with relaxed stability. The primary benefit for military aircraft is more responsive flight performance. Digital flight control systems enabled inherently unstable aircraft such as Lockheed Martin F-117 Nighthawk to fly. A modified NASA F-8C Crusader was the first digital fly-by-wire aircraft, in 1972. The US Space Shuttle (first flown in 1982) has digital fly-by-wire controls. In 1984, the Airbus A320 was the first airliner with digital fly-by-wire controls. In 2005, the Dassault Falcon 7X was the first business jet with fly-by-wire controls.



Intelligent
A newer flight control system, called Intelligent Flight Control System, is an extension of modern digital fly-by-wire flight control systems. The aim is to intelligently compensate for aircraft damage and failure during flight, such as automatically using engine thrust and other avionics to compensate for severe failures such as loss of hydraulics, loss of rudder, loss of ailerons, loss of an engine, etc. Several demonstrations were made on a flight simulator where a Cessna-trained small-aircraft pilot successfully landed a heavily-damaged full-size concept jet, without prior experience with large-body jet aircraft. This development is being spearheaded by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center[1]. It is reported that enhancement is mostly a software upgrade to an existing fully computerized digital fly-by-wire flight control systems.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I heard it before, only here. El K start another thread proving this theory. I'm gonna have fun rippin you apart

ha, that would be a first!

SPEEDY MCCREADY

cutback wrote:

There is a theory that the 4 planes were empty and were crashed via remote control and the passengers were taken to some island or something like that. I can't remember all the details cuz I have enough bullshit in my head as it is.:)

i fucking cant believe i have never fucking ever heard of this before.......

El_Kabong

also of note:
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.

Article: "'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S.' Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have 'descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall.'

'For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible,' said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

Audio Interview 9/16/04: "[Flight 77] could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous."

there's also articles about how the software on these model of boeings wouldn't allow these maneuvers b/c of how unsafe it is w/ a plane full of passengers

jlew24asu

so NASA ran some test flights in the early 80s? I'm still trying to find proof that this happened on 9/11/2001

Abookamongstthemany

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/02/310954.jpg

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

so NASA ran some test flights in the early 80s? I'm still trying to find proof that this happened on 9/11/2001

It proves it could be done which was the point. These are theories just the same as the official one. Neither can be proven.

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

Article: "'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S.' Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have 'descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall.'

'For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible,' said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."

Audio Interview 9/16/04: "[Flight 77] could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous."

there's also articles about how the software on these model of boeings wouldn't allow these maneuvers b/c of how unsafe it is w/ a plane full of passengers

so a few guys say that such a maneuver is impossible by an amateur.

thats your proof? beyond a reasonable doubt your honor?

since this amatuer terrorist couldnt do such a move, it must have been remotely controlled?

probably by some CIA guys sitting in the same building?

CIA special agent Johnson --- " Hey make sure you go on the north end, we are attacking the south end end of the building today"

CIA special agent Jones --- " OK "

Abookamongstthemany

cutback wrote:

There is a theory that the 4 planes were empty and were crashed via remote control and the passengers were taken to some island or something like that. I can't remember all the details cuz I have enough bullshit in my head as it is.:)

I haven't even heard this one.

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I haven't even heard this one.

thats because it hasnt yet shown up on 911research.net

I'm sure its "possible" though right? :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

thats because it hasnt yet shown up on 911research.net

I'm sure its "possible" though right? :rolleyes:

Anything is possible.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

ok...

so Capt Wittenberg says that these maneuvers could not have been performed......

if this is the case......
and this was 100% fact.....

wouldnt every single pilot on the planet be informing anyone who would listen that it was 100% impossible for the plane to make the maneuvers that it supposedly made???

norm

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I haven't even heard this one.

Damn book, you made me look this nonsense up.:D

http://prisonplanet.com/flight_of_the_bumble_planes.html

I didn't read it all so I'm not sure if the passengers thing is in there.