Where do you find this nonsense - youtube, anyone can publish lies, and anyone can fall for them


The video, a test to see who is gullible

the tech in 2001 must have been much much better - so good a remotely controlled Boeing could have probably hit the antenna on top of the tower.


There is no pilot in this aircraft. Date: 1984 (sic)

The Controlled Impact Demonstration

Over a series of 14 flights... the Boeing 720 aircraft made approximately 69 approaches, to about 150 feet (46 m) above the prepared crash site, under remote control...

...During those same flights, NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center also developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the Boeing 720 to fly as a drone aircraft. An initial attempt at the full-scale test was scrubbed in late 1983 due to problems with the uplink connection to the 720; if the uplink failed the ground based pilot would no longer have control of the aircraft...

...Test execution

On the morning of December 1, 1984, the test aircraft took off from Edwards Air Force Base, California, made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2,300 feet (700 m). The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_impact_demonstration

I'm guessing the remote flight capability was built in to all Boeings -probably other aircraft too- after maybe 1990.

LOL, you failed to realize they messed up on the test, and were unable to control the dutch roll, and they missed the target.

The planes on 911 used were stock 767/757 with no remote control. 911 truth makes up the lie of remote control, a kind of control of their feeble minded followers who can't think for themselves.

Why can't 911 truth do reality. After 13 years why can't they get any evidence to support their fantasy? oops, it is a fantasy, like Bigfoot, only dumber. 911 truth survives due to their cult members incredible ignorance.

black or dark gray in color...no windows...no visible markings...looked like military?

sounds like the witnesses could have been describing one of these:








The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) surveillance aircraft. It was initially designed by Ryan Aeronautical (now part of Northrop Grumman), and known as Tier II+ during development. In role and operational design, the Global Hawk is similar to the Lockheed U-2. The RQ-4 provides a broad overview and systematic surveillance using high resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and long-range electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors with long loiter times over target areas. It can survey as much as 40,000 square miles (100,000 km2) of terrain a day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk

That is exactly what the 100s of eyewitnesses described!
Case solved!

Wow, 911 truth skips the little lies and goes for the big once in a life time fantasy mistake. KE impact of a Global Hawk is not big enough to do the damage a 767 does. oops, forgot to make up a lie based on the physics of the event, instead, 911 truth uses fysics, a 911 truth fantasy version of physics.


LOL, the Global Hawk can't go as fast as a 767, oops.
Impact of Flight 175 equal in kinetic energy to 2093 pounds of TNT, and the damage matches the impact.
Impact of a Global Hawk would be 144 pounds of TNT, and it would not break the shell of the WTC tower!
The impact design of the WTC to stop an aircraft was 187 pounds of TNT, and after 911 a study showed the shell would stop a plane with an impact of 330 pounds of TNT. Why can't 911 truth followers find reality based studies?

LOL, 911 truth picked an aircraft which can't do the damage seen. 911 truth followers should do the physics before make up dumb lies.

LOL, cost - full cost of a Global Hawk including R&D, 222 million, 911 truth could pick up a 767 for 150 million, maybe less back in 2001.

The 767 can carry more fuel than a fully loaded Global Hawk weighs. 911 truth picked a poor fantasy aircraft - better switch to Bigfoot.

Boeing 767 going full cruising speed at sea level?

--nice fantasy but doesn't happen in the real world without losing control or breaking apart.


Boeing 767 with no windows and no markings?

--Passenger airliners have windows and big bright markings all over them.
unless it is the tanker or military variant of the 767.


--Four commercial airliners go off course in a single day and not a single jet fighter is sent up to assist or intercept them?

that would be a first in modern US aviation history because it is standard procedure when an aircraft goes off course or loses radio contact. for example in 2009 when civilian pilot Marcus Shrenker sent a distress call to traffic controllers in Alabama, not one but two military fighter aircraft were sent up immediately within minutes to tail his private Piper Meridian turboprop plane. and that was just for a tiny little single-engine non-commercial propeller aircraft.


the official story is a fantasy.

You are full of BS. Before 911 no fighters would come up and check on you. It took over 80 minutes for USAF planes to take a look for the FAA at Payne Stewart's off course plane. You lie about 911, and have no useful knowledge about USAF, FAA, etc.

Each plane on 911 was tracked from takeoff to impact with RADAR. It proves you are spreading lies about 911.

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf
Oops, real evidence proves you are spreading silly lies, mocking those murdered on 911 with fantasy.

Is RADAR too hard to comprehend. The silly NTSB/FAA/Government will give you the raw data if you wish to check. I doubt you understand how RADAR works. Sad to see ignorance drive disrespect of those murdered by 19 on 911.

You don't understand physics, because you proposed Global Hawk was one of the aircraft - it would not have the kinetic energy to do the damage seen on 911. Why can't 911 truth do physics?

once again, you prove you have no clue what you are talking about.

first of all, a private aircraft is not comparable to a major commercial airliner.
if it takes 15 minutes to scramble jets for a private personal airplane in distress, it should take no more than 15 seconds to scramble those fighter jets when a major commercial airliner is involved in an emergency situation. intercept procedures have been in place since the 1950s when NORAD was founded.

but keep dreaming!

Wrong again. You lie about 911 and make up junk about NORAD.

First off, I first flew large jets in 1976. I served 28 years in the USAF, and have thousand of hours in heavy jets. You have lies.

Nope, airlines over the USA before 911 were not intercepted by NORAD for going off course over the USA. You lied. The FAA could coordinate and ask for help before 911, but there was no automatic intercept before 911 for flights over the USA. You are making up lies based on ignorance.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You make up lies, and have no clue you are doing it, or do you lie on purpose.

they never checked on you before 9/11? so how come no less than five jet fighters were sent up to intercept and escort Payne Stewart's private airplane in 1999?? and you claim to be a veteran of the USAF? funny!



On October 25, 1999 the US Air Force and Air National Guard intercepted Payne Stewart's airplane three times

First interception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash#First_interception

Second interception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash#Second_interception

Third interception and escort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash#Third_interception_and_escort

it took nearly an hour and a half for the first interception. Secondly, these were not dedicated armed interceptors but rather planes in the air on schedule training flights.

The Payne Stewart accident does not make the case that it was routine to scramble fighters to intercept airliners over land pre-9/11

Sorry, but you're not left seat material. Every post you make screams that!

I was both seat material, an instructor pilot, an evaluator pilot. And you, a believer of lies on 911, unable to understand RADAR, flying, aircraft, physics, and more. Falling for the remote control is the dumbest one for anyone who can do rational reserach and has some critical thinking skills. Why do you fall for lies?

Because you can't figure out anything, and you make up lies like this...

Sorry, but you're not left seat material. Every post you make screams that! - BobbyBoring, I doubt you could fly a $2.00 balsa wood glider

Are you always wrong, or only on 911 and me?


A flight during desert storm... oops is a KC-135Q a 2 buck balsa glider?

my hero shot flying T-38, part of the million dollar training I got... 2 bucks you say - off by a bunch

See the tanker, I have thousand of hours in those aircraft - plus I can fly and take photos, and chew gum at the same time

What I did, flew the refueling aircraft for these thirsty chicks

On the wing of "my" KC-135, Okinawa

Refueling the SR over western US, just completed the crossover...

We carried special fuel for the SR

We flew 1 mile trial formation, stacked up 500 feet, we required a block altitude - flying over the equator

Oops, left seat, in a 2 buck KC-135, with Flat Stella - oh noes

My first jet flight, a T-37, tweety bird, flies by making noise

Darn, you got 911 wrong, and got me wrong - I have an ATP, you have lies. What is the next false information from 911 truth, the next Gish Gallop in the 13th year of failure and fantasy?
Better luck with Bigfoot, a better Creative Speculation topic than spreading lies about the murder of thousands.

The 767/757 were designed to be flutter free at speeds up to 1.2Vd. Vd = 420 KCAS, and 1.2Vd is equal to 580 mph.

"Boeing 767 going full cruising speed at sea level?
--nice fantasy but doesn't happen in the real world without losing control or breaking apart." - so says gyroscope

Did you make up this lie yourself, or google it.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/1AF764F921FAD01C862568E900643105?OpenDocument
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/9DD00A6A3FBA4A088525667200503326?OpenDocument
What a waste, you will not understand reality, you prefer lies about 911, mocking those murdered on 911.

Flight 11 on 911 was going 470 mph at impact, a speed the 767 was flight tested to and past. OOPS, there goes that lie for Flight 11.


Flight 175 was going 590 mph at impact, in a decent accelerating to impact - 580 mph is 1.2Vd, a speed a 767 should be able to go and not fall apart, and be in control. Another failed lie by 911 truth.

Flight 77 was over Vmo for less than 20 seconds and impacted at 483.5 knots - oops, 1.2Vd is 504 knots, Flight 77 was below 1.2Vd, well within design flutter requirements, under-control and crashed by a terrorist pilot.

Flight 93 was crashed into the ground at high speed on purpose by chicken terrorists.

The 911 truth lies about speed are based on BS and ignornace. Another big lie from 911 truth, in the 13th year of lies and fantasy.

You don't know anything about flying, or what.

that I see only 4 replies yet the thread has 13 replies. someone's desperate it seems.

A video which fools idiots who can't figure out RADAR.

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Rec_Radar_Data_Study_all_aircraft.pdf