- Comment
-
- Remote Control Software
-
- From Larry W
1-1-02
-
- Jeff,
-
- Everyone talks about the schooling the hijackers got
to fly those planes, but no one ever addresses a simple fact. None of them
had ever flown one of those planes before, and yet three of four were direct
hits, the fourth being an aborted mission.
-
- I remember the when I was 16, the first time I was certain
I was going to get laid. I was driving my dad's sedan, a 60 Chevy, which
I had driven many times before, and I almost wrecked it half a dozen times
just headed to the lake. Think of these young men, not much older than
I was in that 60 Chevy, flying these mammoth planes, believing they were
on their way to meet Allah.
-
- The adrenaline would be pumping, they would be shaking.
They were flying at heights they had never experienced and several times
the speed they had ever flown. They were flying over unfamiliar territory,
yet three of those plane flew directly to their targets without any problems
and at an enormous rate of speed they made the final adjustments (view
the final bank the plane that hit the second tower made as it sailed into
the target) to score direct, dead-center hits on their targets. I don't
think so.
-
- I would guess that, much like a cruise missile, those
planes were managed by remote control software operated by a VERY experienced
pilot safe and secure in a command center somewhere. I think that fact
would be born out by the information on the CVR not being released by the
Feds. It probably would reflect conversation indicating that control of
the plane had been taken from the pilots and the hijackers, and they could
not regain that control.
-
- Since the passengers on that craft attempted to apprehend
the hijackers by storming the cockpit, they probably became aware of that
fact, too, and since they had already been in contact with relatives via
cell phone, it is probably why that flight was crashed as unceremoniously
as it was.
-
- How's that for a conspiracy theory?
-
- Larry in Overland Park
- Comment
-
- From Vince Bradley
1-2-1
-
-
- Jeff, Ever since I "stumbled" onto this site,
(Praise Allah or someone for blessing me). I've never stopped coming back...this
is truly the best and "makes much more friggin sense than CNN"
information around! I've been following this whole WTC/Afghanistan bruhaha
since obviously 911 and it's a shame that it takes "well-oiled, media-whore"
(skolnick-style) conspiracies to actually get me interested in foreign
policy. I'm rambling here, but in regards to the "Global Hawk theory":
no theory...Global Hawk FACT.
-
- When I first read "Operation 911 - No suicidal hijackers"
by Carol Valentine, I instantly went "Oh, my God why didnt I even
consider that!!" Im a computer science graduate from the Old school
(somewhere between Atari and Pentium I's) and I remembered discussing in
my artificial intelligence classes. the microprocessors and the programming
language used for these UAV's of the future (as this was mid 1980's..).
-
- One thing that wasn't mentioned in this article was the
fact that after the 3rd plane hit the Pentagon, all planes in the air over
145 seats were automatically grounded and guess what? Those are all 767's!!
Not only that, a college friend of mine who doesent think Im a kook and
actually believes this global hawk thing works for Lockheed. This guy said
that the last Mars landing the US made was a "bet" made between
JPL and lockheed Martin that they (JPL) could actually get the gov't to
fund a mission to send a kid's remote controlled car toy (like the ones
by TYCO..) to mars.. and guess who won the bet???
-
- He's done some tenure as an air traffic controller and
noted that he read that flight 93 while on route made a U-TURN somewhere
between Kansas and Ohio and headed back (verifiable on the net) AT THE
SAME TIME some 300 planes are scrambling changing their routes to find
alternative landing because they were grounded "effective immediately."
I would think that with a plane changing course that drastically (especially
when pullin' a U-Turn in the middle of the "air-street").
-
- It's quite amazing (Ripley's Believe it or not amazing)
that this plane didn't collide with another plane or come close to colliding
with others in the near vicinity as I'm sure there were quite a few of
them out there and the "suicidal hijacker pilots" actually sucked
as pilots..(again verifiable..). He's shown me before what the radar screens
look like when the sky is full ..talk about needing nerves of steel!!
-
- Keep up the good work Jeff!!!! Its good to know that
there are others out there that like me, "Aint buyin it." Believe
me, I feel just as everyone else does on this website about this "slimy
ordeal" and I've managed to infuriate quite a few family members in
the process (especially the ones who fought in Nam and WWII who call me
a facist..) Speaking of which, Loved the story "Right-winged kook
Thanksgiving" as I was "banished" from Thanksgiving dinner
with my utter nonsense and crazy talk. It's amazing how quickly people
step aside when you have a opposite opinion about "gub'ment issues"
I agree on the Independent Committee to investigate this and 100 other
things..but my question is how come with all that is being written especially
on the net these days, We cannot demand and enforce answers??? I mean Im
still learning (un-learning that is..) government fundamentals but with
checks and balances, who da hell "polices the police" ???(gover
-
- Take care Jeff and keep telling the truth or at least
giving us the URL's to it!!!
-
- Vince Bradley
Comment
-
- From Moment Of Truth
telrayes@hotmail.com
1-2-2
-
-
- Hello, Jeff...Is there anybody out there? I feel so lonely
here!! GLOBAL HAWK technology is REAL people! it has been around for a
long time and it isn't even that sophisticated compared to some other stuff
the military has been hiding. I am no rocket scientest here, so correct
me if I am wrong please! But don't cruise missiles fly using the same aerodynamic,
avionics and guidance concepts and principles as planes?!
-
- And guess what? They don't even need "ace pilots"
flying them to their targets even by remote control! You cant take chances
with human error here! You just punch in the 3 dimensional coordinates
where they need to hit - and the computers takes over and do the rest.
The course is then monitored in real time and adjusted by the computer
through sattelite or AWACS. Didn't anybody see the videos from the cameras
mounted on those missiles hitting there targets in Desert Storm with pinpoint
precision as far back as 1990? And those missiles didn't even need VERY
experienced pilots flying them.
Comment
-
- From Jack Handy
1-2-2
-
- I just wanted to throw in my $0.02 worth about the possibility
of the 9/11 aircraft being flown remotly. When I was in the Navy I worked
on a system called ACLS which is Automated Carrier Landing System. The
system will actually land an aircraft on a carrier with no intervention
by the pilot. This is not new technology either, it was developed in the
50's and I can say from personal experience that it is not a complicated
system.
-
- I found this article today http://www.flagshipnews.com/archives/june072001_6.shtml
that explains a new system that will replace ACLS with a GPS guided version.
It would seem entirely possible that this could be used on a comercial
aircraft right now, today.
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Ken
1-2-2
-
- I ran across a site that has a petition to the US Senate
asking for an inquiry into the events of 911.
-
- Here is the link http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html
-
- Keep up the good work.
Ken
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Scott T. Nixon
1-3-1
-
- I have long been suspicious of some of the government's
>explanations regarding many reported "calamities," and your
article >helped to clear the air on a few things regarding the September
11 >tragedies.
-
- However, I wouldn't assign any of the blame for the planning
of the terrorist activities to the U.S. government -- only for the cover-up
which was to follow. But in order to assign blame, there has to be a motive.
And to try and determine motive, one has to ask the question: Who has already
gained the most because of what has happened, or who stands to gain the
most in the future?
-
- Surely, the Bush administration has the most to gain
or lose from the crisis management in the post-terrorism aftermath. If
they're perceived to be doing a good job of responding to September 11,
then they have a better chance of solidifying their congressional hold
in next year's off-year election, and of re-taking the White House in 2004.
On the other hand, though, perceived failure of the Bush White House to
respond to this crisis appropriately, and they have everything to lose.
So, obviously George W. Bush is more than just a bystander sitting back
and watching the investigation take place. He's got a personal stake in
it probably more than any other American besides the victims of the tragedy
itself as well as the soldiers deployed overseas to engage in the battle.
-
- But who would've planned such an elaborate scheme, and
for what purposes? To make a long e-mail just a bit shorter, I'll cut right
to the chase and avoid all of the other potential "suspects."
I think the Saudi Arabia government -- or else some very wealthy and influential
Saudi members of society who might not necessarily be directly involved
in the government -- were the ones who appear to have had the most motive.
Remember that many Saudis consider the United States to be an occupying
force of their country for more than ten years now, ever since the Persian
Gulf War ended. Although publicly they express glee over the U.S.'s rout
of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's army in 1991, privately they hold much
disgust and anger over what they see as "creeping Western influences"
being brought into their country by a permanent military presence there.
And remember their abrupt refusal of the FBI's request in 1997 to be allowed
to participate in the investigation into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
-
- But could Saudi Arabian individuals merely by themselves
pull off such a technical feat? Highly unlikely, but they sure could have
bankrolled the undertaking. And our government, fearful of the public recriminations
which might follow the denunciation of a long-time oil supplier in the
region, as well as the economic effect of another embargo, would have a
strong motive to try and make it look like just a two-bit al-Qaeda operation
if they felt that they could retaliate against the Saudi government in
a more private manner.
-
- So why, then, would Saudi Arabia want to publicly commit
such a horrific act and then try and attribute blame to some other, unknown
entity? Well, recall the Saudi's war against Saddam Hussein ten years ago.
It could be very possible that the original Saudi intention was not to
try and pin blame on Osama bin Laden, but on Saddam Hussein, their longtime
foe. The war against Iraq ten years ago gave the Saudis a convenient pretext
to clamp down harshly on human rights within their country against political
dissidents. And another war against the Iraqi menace now would give them
yet another pretext this time, too. Kuwait would be more than thrilled
as well. But the Saudis would have had to have waited until after the 2000
elections to try and accomplish such a horrific act so as not to give Bill
Clinton the opportunity to shine as the commander in chief in response,
thus ensuring Gore's election last November.
-
- Besides, the two previous attempts to try and lay blame
at Hussein's feet -- the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as well as the
1995 Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building bombing -- both resulted in
the Clinton administration swiftly identifying, prosecuting, and convicting
the perpetrators of those acts without so much as a single Patriot missile
being launched Saddam Hussein's way. Yet one more reason why from then
on terrorism against American targets went overseas, i.e., the 1997 Khobar
Towers bombing in Dahrain, Saudi Arabia, as well as the bombings of the
U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole. As long as the
Clinton administration was in office, they reasoned, then all attempted
terrorist strikes against U.S. targets would have to be made on foreign
soil.
-
- Then came November 2000 and George W. Bush's election
to the White House. Now, the Saudis believed, they at long last had a friend
and an ideological soulmate who, even if he wouldn't for a moment be willingly
complicit in such a terrible horror, might nevertheless play just enough
of a village idiot so as to shift the blame and thrust of the investigation
onto Iraq. However, things rarely go exactly according to plan, and in
an investigation as large and complex as this one was, surely there would
be someone who would find out information enabling investigators to, appropriately,
affix blame on Osama bin Laden and his Saudi network of well-connected
terrorists using Afghanistan as their terrorist training facility and playground,
rather than on Iraq. Even the sophisticated effort to attribute the anthrax-laced
letters to Saddam Hussein were eventually found out, and have since been
traced to an Army lab in Provo, Utah of all places.
-
- As to the alleged GPS technology, I floated that theory
around for at least as far back as Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's plane
mishap in 1996, possibly by rebellious anti-Clinton military types who
were angry at the Clinton administration's supposed "weakening"
of our military and who were emboldened by the Republican takeover of Congress
just a year earlier and an expected GOP win in November, as well as by
Yitzak Rabin's assassination in November 1995 which effectively ended all
hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East (peace being about the worst-case
scenario imagined by the military industrial complex, save all-out nuclear
war). Moreover, I suspect that similar GPS technology could have been used
to down JFK, Jr.'s plane off the coast of Massachusetts, as a dampening
prelude to the Democrats' morale which they would need if they were to
win the White House in 2000 (not to mention knocking off a potential Democratic
candidate who might some day down the road make his own White House bid).
-
- But not everyone in the government could have been in
on terrorism of such a magnitude, or even a sizable number. It would have
had to have been a very small number, if any at all within the official
government (but working off the payroll out of former CIA director William
Casey's OSS London offices is another matter -- he of the infamous Iran-Contra
scandal who conveniently got a brain tumor just two days before he was
scheduled to testify before the Congress). This would explain the fourth
airplane crash theory. If the fourth plane was indeed shot down by the
U.S. military in order to prevent it from striking yet another target,
our own government would never, ever, want to admit to such a thing in
public. Nor, for that matter, would they ever want to release the cockpit
voice recorder. Rather, to try and avoid giving the terrorists and their
sympathizers and bankrollers around the world any peace of mind, simply
portray the passengers aboard the aircraft as "heroes" who stormed
the terrorists and foiled their plot in midair. This will puzzle the elaborate
schemers of such an act, who never for one moment would think that any
one of their loyal and programmed foot soldiers would be so incapable as
to not be able to carry out their terrorism without being stopped by "self-absorbed"
Americans, of all people.
-
- To sum up, I will only say that I don't believe for one
moment that the Bush administration, or anyone in it, would have conspired
to commit such an evil act of horror on their fellow Americans. But someone
sympathetic to the administration, even a foreigner sympathetic to the
Bush administration, may have had as strong a motive as any. And no matter
how uninvolved George W. Bush himself may be, I don't believe that we should
ever -- ever -- reward terrorists for their acts. I, for one, won't be
voting for his reelection in 2004. .
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Richard
1-3-2
-
- I am a commercial pilot...and there isn't an airline
pilot that I have spoken to who is buying the 9/11 story with the airliners.
-
- Funny, 75% of them said it was as "though someone
was remotely controlling them." Thought you'd find this interesting.
-
- Also, a lot of spraying going on via chemtrails as well...
-
- you heard it from the horse's mouth....
Comment
-
- From Mark Tichenor
1-3-1
-
- On your comments page someone did suggest that cruise
missile technology could have been used to guide the "hijacked"
planes. I had that idea, too and it is very SIMPLE. Since all the planes
were the same class, it makes it even simpler.
-
- You just need someone on Boeing's design team to insure
that the planes are equipped with a maintenance computer jack with the
right control signal lines embedded. Then a pre-programmed "cruise
missile" control logic box (probably now implemented in a Palm Pilot
sized box) can simply be plugged in to the maintenance port on the airplane
anytime before T-DAY. The device could be activated by a radio signal or
a cell phone which would take the pilot's controls off-line and take over
flying the plane using data from the plane's own GPS positioning system
to control its approach to the programmed target.
-
- Keep up the good work!
- Mark
-
-
Comment On The Comments Of Mr. David Foster
-
- From One Highly-Concerned American
1-4-2
-
-
- '9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely'
By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant (?)
drfoster@pdq.net
-
- David Foster:
-
- "Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting
equipment in all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff."
-
- "Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would
have radioed an emergency to Air Traffic Control."
-
- MY COMMENT If Dark Forces can install remote control,
can they not also take care of all other issues, such as "undesirable"
radio alerts to the ground???
-
-
- David Foster's thoughts about what a pilot "could"
do if their aircraft was remotely taken over:
-
- "4. Pilot thinks he has a runaway flight control
system. He kills flight computer number 1 and goes with 2. If that fails
he re- initializes the system and the bird flies in dumb mode for a short
while. If that fails he re-initializes again and dumps all flight course
data and reverts to dumb mode and manually enters way points. If that fails
he kills primary and goes to dumb mode for rest of flight (Boeing learned
from the Airbus incident. The 757/767 glass cockpit allows the pilot to
have the final say) 5. If all else fails, pilot will kill the system, drop
the air motor (a little emergency generator that drops into the slip stream
and generates power with a small propeller and land ASAP with only partial
hydraulic boost and a turn and bank. (Thank you Air Canada). 6. All 4 aircraft,
assuming they were not hijacked, had sufficient time to do the above."
-
- MY COMMENT Referring to my first comment, little or NOTHING
could be done if the reconstructed systems override all pilot input. It's
all chip and software "fly by wire" and "ohhh, so easy"
to mess with.
-
-
- David Foster: "7. There are recordings from Flight
175 of the hijacker speaking. [Seems evident]* the PIC (Pilot in Command)
held down the push to talk on the yoke so somebody would know he was being
hijacked. It also means he wasn't being allowed to use the radio. The hijacker
was even recorded saying NO ONE WOULD BE HURT. So the PILOTS FOLLOWED POLICY
and did not resist." *My note: If it "seems" to be, it is??
-
- MY COMMENT The PIC (PILOT IN COMMAND) was the remote
"joy stick" pilot and the "HIJACKER" an actor/dark
force stand in. Or, do you (the readers) also believe the "smoking
gun" video is real??!!
-
-
- David Foster: "Myth: These poorly trained hijackers
could not have flown such complicated aircraft in such a precise manner."
-
- "Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so
precisely.
-
- Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it,and
taking off is hard.
-
- Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training
through fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft Carriers
and Destroyer Escorts."
-
- MY COMMENT Remote control bypasses on board pilots, thus
no issue!! But,,, since it has been raised, and since there are people
who still believe passports can fly through blood, jet fuel, glass and
steel then fire that "melts" steel and then travel several NY
city blocks through buildings thus being: "miraculously" found;
submitted to police and winding up on CNN...
-
- ...I'll give it a shot:
-
- IGNORE: To REFUSE to pay attention to; disregard. IGNORANT:
Without education or knowledge. IGNORAMUS: An ignorant person. My addition:
One whom ignores (refuses) knowledge which leads to truth.... One whom
WILLFULLY refuses knowledge, even when it is right before them. These words,
of course, are right across from IDIOT and IDLE in the dictionary.
-
- Signed,
Highly Concerned American
-
Comment
-
- 9-11 Planes Not Flown Remotely
-
- By David Foster
Former Aviation Consultant
drfoster@pdq.net 1-4-1
-
- While many are looking for conspiratorial aspects of
the events of 9-11, one thing is relatively certain, Global Hawk Remote
Piloting Technology played no role in the events. Many have written that
there is over- whelming evidence that the flight controls of all 4 aircraft
were seized by remote control.
-
- Most of these writers are working with only partial information
and fail to dig deeper, and are very obviously unfamiliar with how aircraft,
cockpits and the Air Traffic system work.
-
- Lets look at some myths versus reality.
-
-
- Myth: Dark Forces planted Global Hawk Remote Piloting
equipment in all four aircraft and seized control shortly after takeoff.
-
- Reality: Had this happened, the flight crew would have
immediately radioed an emergency to Air Traffic Control.
-
-
- Myth: The Federal Government is hiding tapes of just
such conversations.
-
- Reality: How do these dark forces keep hundreds of air
traffic controllers silent? Reality 2: The flight crews would have also
radio their companies on their respective company frequency to request
technical help on regaining control of their aircraft. Reality 3: There
were recorded transmissions from all 4 aircraft, so the alleged Global
Hawk did not shut off the radio's
-
-
- Myth: These poorly trained hijackers could not have flown
such complicated aircraft in such a precise manner.
-
- Reality 1: Talk to any pilot, they flew not so precisely.
-
- Reality 2. Flying is easy, any 16 year old can do it,
landing and taking off is hard.
-
- Reality 3: 16 year old Japanese kids with 2 hours training
flew through fighter cover and flak and hit smaller targets like Aircraft
Carriers and Destroyer Escorts.
-
-
- Myth: The hijackers were poorly armed, and could have
been overpowered.
-
- Reality: It was policy before 9-11 for all flight crew
to do exactly what a hijacker tells them regardless of whether a weapon
is visible, implied, on not evident at all. "Flight attendant Michelle
Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She had been "trained to handle
a hijacking." Exactly - her training was to cooperate in every way.
The goal of the training is to do as asked, get the plane on the ground
and let the authorities sort it out. No one dreamed that hijackers would
use the plane as a weapon of mass destruction because it had never been
done before.
-
-
- Myth: The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation
sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making
it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of
the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move
that is considerably less than obvious."
-
- According to the article, the air traffic controllers
"had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly
at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -
full throttle.
-
- "But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide
mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so
tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
-
- Reality 1: The first thing you learn in flight school
is how to turn on and OFF the transponder. It is in fact a simple and obviously
placed device. You don't even have to turn it off, you can just set it
to 1200, the code for VFR uncontrolled traffic.
-
- Reality 2: Whoever the Washington Post's Aviation sources
are, they have never flown. The pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon,
made a sloppy turn, came in too low and actually hit the ground before
momentum carried the jet into the building. In fact the building suffered
far less damage as a result of his poor flying.
-
-
- Myth: "Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book,
Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better
with the amount of experience.....Yet this is the man the FBI would have
us believe flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill."
BUT HE COULD NOT EVEN FLY A CESSNA 172 !!
-
- Reality: Once airborne it is much more difficult to keep
a 172 straight and level than a Boeing 757/767. 172 bounce with mild turbulence
and drift with the wind. A 400 knot 757 is very stable.
-
-
- Myth: The instructor said neither man was able to pass
a Stage I rating test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh
words, the instructor said, the two moved on ....
-
- Reality: Once again the writer proves their lack of knowledge
of aviation. A track and intercept refers to tracking (following) an invisible
VOR radio beam and intercepting an invisible point in space where two VOR
signals intersect. This is strictly an instrument condition without the
benefit outside visual references. Its very easy to hit a big building
you can see and AIM at.
-
-
- Myth: "Why would the take-off time and the passenger
list be held secret? The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead.
The relatives must have known that when they heard the news of the crashes."
-
- Reality: Airlines never release the complete passenger
list until all next of kin have been notified and all the name of their
dead relative to be released (which is why you see many partial lists after
crashes). Why weren't the hijackers listed. Look up the passenger list
published from any hijacked American Carrier since the 70's. You will not
find the name of any suspected hijackers. They never publish the hijackers
names. I repeat - NEVER. Why? Ask a Cop and a Lawyer.
-
-
- Myth: "Boston airport officials said they did not
spot the plane's course until it had crashed, and said the control tower
had no unusual communications with the pilots or any crew member."
-
- Reality: Actually, this isn't a myth. Once the airplane
was above 18,000 feet, it was turned over to an in-route Center. Logan
ATC didn't have the control responsibility of this aircraft.
-
-
- Myth: "Less than 30 minutes into a journey that
was to have taken six hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central
New Jersey, near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west,
airline employees said. It then headed directly toward Manhattan.
-
- Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than
90 minutes from Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact,..."
-
- Reality: Its not 90 minutes from Central New Jersey to
the WTC its 15 when traveling at 400 knots.
-
-
- Myth: "ABC-TV NEWS has learned that shortly before
the plane changed directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked
the FAA for a new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington.
-
- Now, THAT conversation must have been interesting! You
can imagine the response of the air traffic controller: "Excuse me?
Flight 93, you're in the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but
you're just changed your mind and want to spend the day in Washington?
Please explain."
-
- Reality: I'll be happy to explain. At 9:37am EST all
aircraft are ordered to land at earliest possible suitable site. Flight
93 in an effort NOT TO CALL ATTENTION TO ITSELF at 9:47am, requests a new
Flight Plan back to the east in order to comply with the FAA request. Based
on the obvious mass confusion going on in getting hundreds of flight down,
Cleveland Center sees this as reasonable at first. From Cleveland, BWI
is a relatively close airport in terms of commercial flight. Its a Good
Alternate for a west coast bound plane ordered to land. Its not unreasonable
since BWI and Reagan National are both large UNITED BASE Fields and a company
pilot wants to land at a Company Airport. Pittsburgh is home to U.S Airways.
Landing where you don't OWN GATES causes extra paperwork, you know, fuel,
using the other guy's gates, etc.
Finally lets talk about what would happen if just such a thing did happen
(remote control takeover)
-
|