It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

page: 106
40
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander

Today's aircraft communicate with satellites ALL THE TIME while they are flying.



Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

Still don't know what happened or where it is.




posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne


It seems quite plausible to me that MH370 was commandeered by way of a hack into the onboard computer system. If they can hack modern automobiles, which has been demonstrated, it cannot be much more difficult to hack into an airliner.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne


It seems quite plausible to me that MH370 was commandeered by way of a hack into the onboard computer system. If they can hack modern automobiles, which has been demonstrated, it cannot be much more difficult to hack into an airliner.


Hacking the entertainment/data portion of a car's electrical system is not controlling the car's controls. Cite a case were a car was hacked and droven to a specific location.

Using you vast aerospace background, cite what system a person can hack to get to the flight controls and telemetry to remotely fly a jet like a drone to a specific destination.



posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne


it cannot be much more difficult to hack into an airliner.


IOW, you have no idea if it's possible.

Got it.

Carry on



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
People who think you can't hack a plane are impossible to reason with about anything conspiracy related.

For them the need to feel safe outweighs the need to examine real threats. (IE feeling safe matters more than being safe).

They'll just handwave. No matter what evidence you present, even if you proved it to a certainty. Might as well just give up.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Nm.
edit on 8/21/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Lets put it this way: participants on this forum fall into 4 categories:

1) A rational believer of the official story.

They will admit a 757 can be hacked. But they do not believe it WAS hacked.

2 ) A rational conspiracy theorist.

They will admit it was entirely possible for Hani Hanjour to execute the 270 degree descent maneuver and hit the pentagon at 500+ mph. But they do not believe he DID SO.



But then there are the nuts.

1) Irrational believer in the official story.

Needs to believe so badly, they will convince themself and try to convince you that nobody anywhere is smart enough to figure out how to hack a 757.


2) Irrational conspiracy theorist:

So determined the official story must be false, they won't even accept the possibility that Hani Hanjour could have done a maneuver that, while difficult, isn't exactly olympic gold medal stunt.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And people that think you can turn a plane into remotely controlled, by yanking out instruments and plugging new ones in or taking it over through the recorders, don't know a damn thing about planes and maintenance. So instead of disagreeing, or wanting to see proof, we should just believe them?


Believe them that it is possible? Yes. Definitely.

The first mistake of any security network is believing a hack of their system is truly impossible. It's a very foolish kind of arrogance.

But I did get tired of going back and forth.

(Such as pointing out that you don't have to read the inputs to an instrument. The needle is moved magnetically, and the needle's actuator puts out a magnetic signal that can be interpreted directly. So you can just read the need that. )


(Or suggesting that servo motors can be used on the control sticks themselves, since there is no need to move the controls fast or slow. Just get them physically into the desired positions. The fast adjustments are made to throttle, which the autopilot can control directly if you hack it and/or replace it with a similar system.)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Naw, I've actually been in a wing and control box at the factory south of Seattle.....no way man......auto pilots a separate thing, man

Whose gonna switch to main tanks, man
edit on 21-8-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So you are now in the truth movement phase were you ignore tons of legitimate questions how unlikely the jet was hacked. especially there is no possibility the jet was hacked in an hour mid flight.

You just want to say it ways possible while ignoring technical hurdles and reality.

Make your case by answering...

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You know your just utterly clueless.

The point for the 757, there is no central DCS that controls all flight surfaces. And some of the controls that do, are just for trim and fine tuning. I am not sure they will control for full range of motion.

Start with were are you going to "hack" into the actual control signal derived from manual controls to the hydraulics in wiring with short runs, no slack, buried deep behind instrument clusters and in the air frame. I hope systems and wiring harden for at least turbulence. If not water egress and possible fire? And that is even if the hydraulic control blocks are driven by electrical solenoids, not manual levers.

How you are going to filter out the original control signals to the hacked electronics to prevent interfering and competing signals.

When you physically hack the wiring of a system online, how are you going to prevent shorts, breaker trips, blowing fuses, and damaging electrical controls. One short, and it's game over.


The power concerns are for how one would luge aboard and install an antenna, amplifier, receiver, and transmitter to establish communications of telemetry and control signals on a system closed and isolated to the jet. A system with limited access. A system that would need to broadcast telemetry at least sixty miles if the ground control station could handoff from antenna to antenna. What if the control station could not travel, or not handoff from antenna. You would need to transmit telemetry 300, 500, 600 miles?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Prove there was data plugs to plug into and those data plugs allow write privileges. Prove those data plugs had access to process values and access to flight control circuits.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

it not the A Team. You have watched too many Hollywood movies.

They do run system checks and use checklists for preflight inspections. Also visual inspections. Pilots, aircrew, maintenance, and ground crews.

You never addressed the real issues. Installing redundant systems. Signal containing and able to read data from the flight system. Able to get foreign components to communicate with Boeing proprietary control languages. Installing equipment to capture telemetry from the flight system, installing the equipment to transmit the data, then equipment to receive control signals, condition the signals. and translate the signal to the native controls.

How are you going to get to wiring and data cables probably harden against fires and turbulence buried behind instrument panels and deep in the fuselage. It's not like there is much slack in the wiring runs. Weight and economics.

Where are you going to get the power for all the equipment.

Are you going to splice into control wiring down stream of the control system. If you splice down stream of the control signal, how you going to filter out the control signal. How does the splice not interfere with system checks. Control system communications checks. And what about the controls that receive two separate inputs. From the pilot and from the computer? And then the dampening systems? Then the systems that have redundant controls for reliability?

How do you cut or tap into wiring without creating shorts that would fry an online control system/microprocessor. Do you shut down the flight control power to install the system?

How do you do all this splicing and ensure all controls pass visual inspection and system checks.

Then all the splicing and equipment is going to go flawlessly with no testing. And how do you get pass all the failsafes and inflight calibrations / adjustments by pilots discussed in this thread. It just takes one short, failed transmitter, improper reading to crash off target. I would think the control station would need video to see the actual flight path. Do you read the gauges by video, or tap into each one to transmit the telemetry?

You have ignored how your going to actuate the controls still manipulate by mechanical cables.

And you ignored how and what telemetry was going to be captured and broadcasted to the control station.

And you need the space to install all the items.

And how would you get all the wiring, tools, wiring connectors, antennas, amplifiers, transmission/ receiving equipment, and PLCs onboard. Items that probably look a lot like a bomb?

Your theories just underlines your total lack in understanding of control systems.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Start with were are you going to "hack" into the actual control signal derived from manual controls to the hydraulics in wiring with short runs, no slack, buried deep behind instrument clusters and in the air frame. I hope systems and wiring harden for at least turbulence. If not water egress and possible fire? And that is even if the hydraulic control blocks are driven by electrical solenoids, not manual levers.

In the conspiracy world magic outweighs reality.

This all assumes that the pilot/people on board go along with the flight changes.
I'm certain that a few flipped switches or breakers would have thrown a wrench into this remotely piloted plane.
Unless you also believe that ALL the controls/electronics were disconnected and run through a simulator computer to fool the pilots.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Hijackers flew the plane into the buildings. (Except for one)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Yes, I wonder if it is easier to hack into an Airbus than it is to hack into a Boeing?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, I wonder if it is easier to hack into an Airbus than it is to hack into a Boeing?


Why don't you do the research and post how each would be hacked? Like stating what data connection are available, which way the data can flow through the connections, what sections of memory are accessed, and if any flight controls can be accessed. Or if the hack would require physically splicing into the system.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, I wonder if it is easier to hack into an Airbus than it is to hack into a Boeing?


Why don't you do the research and post how each would be hacked? Like stating what data connection are available, which way the data can flow through the connections, what sections of memory are accessed, and if any flight controls can be accessed. Or if the hack would require physically splicing into the system.


That would require honest research, and one of the prerequisites of becoming a conspiracy believer in the first place is an aversion to doing that.

I'm thinking of an aversion like how Dracula has an aversion to sunlight.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Hey Neutron Flux refrain from giving out too much info



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I have been a pilot. Hacking as you describe is a very long shot.
Airbus has certainly accepted some of my ideas into their systems which i had suggested when i was a student during my CPL



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
Yes, I wonder if it is easier to hack into an Airbus than it is to hack into a Boeing?


Why don't you do the research and post how each would be hacked? Like stating what data connection are available, which way the data can flow through the connections, what sections of memory are accessed, and if any flight controls can be accessed. Or if the hack would require physically splicing into the system.


That would require honest research, and one of the prerequisites of becoming a conspiracy believer in the first place is an aversion to doing that.

I'm thinking of an aversion like how Dracula has an aversion to sunlight.


One of the prerequisites of believing the official story is to ask no questions at all of government sources.

edit on 24-8-2017 by Salander because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

How is the list of NIST falsehoods coming up for you to post to facilitate debate?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: manuelram16
Maybe Zaphod can shine more light on this but those SOB's took flying lessons in small aircraft and then took time in Airliner simulators, that's when one of them was reported to the feds (mossaui) and detained, once you have an aircraft trimmed you can fly it into anything you want, it's not rocket science.


Some of the alleged hijackers' trainers are on public record as saying that their students were very poor. Experienced pilots are on record as saying that it would have been impossible even for they to have achieved the 270 degree turn and a perfect descent to ground level at the point of impact. People who reject such testimony are in plain denial of the facts because these judgements do not suit their beliefs in the official story.

"Perfect descent to ground level". What BS they only needed to be within several hundred feet and there were 2 targets next to each other. The trainers at the time stated they thought it was odd that the trainees didn't want to know how to take off or land ! I'm wrong if the target was a specific floor!!!!! If the target was one of two large adjacent very tall buildings then I think the target is huge DUH!. One wonders what the autopilot setting was , just a thought .

But no no no lets put some facts to the side, lets exaggerate others. Lets twist history. I was here on ATS when this happened. Amazing how facts at the time after several years have become distorted even on ATS.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 103  104  105    107  108  109 >>

log in

join