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: 109
42
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: UB2120

Except have number of witness , some only yards away from impact point, watch the airplane come over the highway
and smash into the Pentagon .

Example - number of firefighters on Pentagon Heliport watching the plane come in

www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
What's with this man mentioning a prop plane flying near the AA flight and veering away from he Pentagon.

Of course this man might be a plant. Who knows any more.




posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
What's with this man mentioning a prop plane flying near the AA flight and veering away from he Pentagon.

Of course this man might be a plant. Who knows any more.



A military C-130 , a 4 engine turboprop , was in trail as it hit the Pentagon.

The pilot saw it hit.



posted on Sep, 9 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Military C 130 from Minnesota National Guard had just left Andrews. ATC at Reagan National asked him for
visual on the unknown target coming in

Pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien - call sign Gofer 06

www.youtube.com...

If did any research would have found this ....



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

One of many questions and impossibilities surrounding the 9/11 attacks. London just had a 24 story building that was fully engulfed in flames, it never collapsed. Yet the Trade Towers fell in under an hour and building 7 collapsed later that day. What does it take for the media to start investigating and asking the hard questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks?



Maybe ask yourself who funds and controls the media? Then ask yourself who orchestrated 9/11.
edit on 13-10-2017 by WhyDidIJoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

One of many questions and impossibilities surrounding the 9/11 attacks. London just had a 24 story building that was fully engulfed in flames, it never collapsed. Yet the Trade Towers fell in under an hour and building 7 collapsed later that day. What does it take for the media to start investigating and asking the hard questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks?



Maybe ask yourself who funds and controls the media? Then ask yourself who orchestrated 9/11.


Advertisers able to buy time for commercials through you buying coffee, pop, detergent, toothpaste, adult diapers, erectile disfunction medicine.

The NFL is subsided by tax dollars, are the part of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Amtrak? The Tennessee valley power authority? Do you get tax credits?



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
There is simply no possible way that a commercial plane would have been allowed anywhere near that section of Washington DC. None.



posted on Oct, 14 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ZanarkandProphet

They are every day. There's a commercial airport that takes a couple hundred flights a day within a mile or so of the Pentagon as they approach or depart, depending on which way they're going that day.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ZanarkandProphet

They are every day. There's a commercial airport that takes a couple hundred flights a day within a mile or so of the Pentagon as they approach or depart, depending on which way they're going that day.


I like how conspiracists spoon fed the false narratives of the truth movement cannot research the simplest of facts for themselves. Then wonder why the truth movement and their drones warrant no trust and credibility?



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ZanarkandProphet




There is simply no possible way that a commercial plane would have been allowed anywhere near that section of Washington DC. None.

The utter ignorance people have about the 911 subject is astounding.
Take offs on Ronald Reagan airport runway 33 goes right over the Pentagon exactly 2000 feet from the end of the runway.

You could have googled this in 10 seconds yet you post.
Astounding.



posted on Oct, 15 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ZanarkandProphet


Well the point is that there was much deception that day in the ATC system, because NORAD was running its exercise Vigilant Guardian.

The commercial planes work and fly within certain prescribed airspace, and that is closer to all those landmarks you talk about than you might think.

But the saga of 911 was a magnificent deception.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.


I keep answering and you keep ignoring my answer.

Answer: you lease one. You try a hundred different hacks, until, by trial and error you succeed. Then you analyze your success, and refine it. All on the LEASED PLANE.

Once you've refined it, then you apply it to the "terrorist" plane.

It's a typical engineering problem. If you justify it right, you could hire a fully legitimate crew of engineers to figure it out for you using a LEASED or PURCHASED Plane. To practice on.


Of course I can't tell you specifically how each electrical problem gets resolved. Put an actual plane in front of me, and I'll figure it out. It's not rocket science (at least not quite.)

But servos you use to manipulate flight surfaces don't need to be high voltage. You're moving a stick that a human can move. If need be, you could bring your own batteries with you in your luggage, and power them off of that.




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?


That's not a serious problem. You just set the autopilot to fly to within say 5 miles of your target. Then use a control signal with a 5 mile range for the last part of the trip.

There no need to actually control it during the majority of the flight. Only the very end.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
What people often forget about hacking, is that especially in the late 90's, early 2000's era, computers were getting faster and faster at an alarming rate.

I don't know how hold the black box was on that plane, but I would venture to guess that it was at least one generation, if not two or three generations behind the state of the art of that time. Like maybe equivalent to 486dx?

If you knew the layout of the circuit board, and something about the software, it would be very easy to install a much smaller, but faster, computing device that completely takes its place and seamlessly emulates everything it does. There's no way that thing was running a Pentium II or something like that, like laptops of the day might possess.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   

edit on 10/17/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Why do you keep talking about black boxes? It’s a data recording device? Data goes to the recorder. Back feed protection is probably provided by diodes. There might be a pin out for communications errors. The pre flight checks makes it impossible the system was hacked before flight.

It takes about an hour to splice in a car radio. Splicing in a flight system is almost impossible during a short flight.

You have to know the language of the flight computers. It’s probably not windows. The flight computers probably have a proprietary version of Unix. The cockpit control panels would have to be removed. Accessing the flight computers would take understanding of a closed source system with a specific language, with specific hardware, and rings of security.

And you still need to instal a transmitter, receiver, and antenna.

Anything that is actuated by hand mechanical controls with hydraulics cannot not be controlled by the flight computers.

Possible is not proof. And there is zero proof the flight controls were “hacked”.
edit on 17-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added

edit on 17-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   


Possible is not proof. And there is zero proof the flight controls were “hacked”.

Possible equates to making things up.
Conspiracy believers have to keep making things up just to keep their beliefs alive.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


Those who believe the official conspiracy need only to rest on the deception and cover-up, and the bully pulpit of the government and the media. No thinking necessary, no analysis necessary.

Those who question and doubt the official story only seek knowledge and truth for their own sake.

Big difference.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


Those who believe the official conspiracy need only to rest on the deception and cover-up, and the bully pulpit of the government and the media. No thinking necessary, no analysis necessary.

Those who question and doubt the official story only seek knowledge and truth for their own sake.

Big difference.


Every post what you believe are the ten most credible examples how you believe all the official narrative is a lie?

Or would you rather talk about no evidence of flight control hacking.

The supposed impossible maneuver by flight 77 that you will not describe.

In one post you back no jet hit the pentagon, then agree in another post a military jet hit the pentagon.

You never make Your Miller case by actually quoting the individual, and cite sources for the quotes.

You never provide a source or documentation of your claims.

The towers falling at the rate of free fall is a lie.

The towers fell through the greatest path of resistance is a lie.

Evidence of thermite was a sham.

Want to talk about:
Thermite paint.
Thermite ceiling tiles.
Fizzle no flash explosives.
Nukes with no fission products, epm pulse, and no radiation.
Self destructing buildings with rebar covered in C-4.
Missiles, laser, and Holograms.
Stolen Russian missile damaged by being sunk in saltwater.
Dustification and energy weapons.

Distrust of conspiracists stems from their embracing pseudoscience and the fraud that is Jones, Gage, Wood, and those that exploit 9/11 for profit.
edit on 17-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Those who believe the official conspiracy need only to rest on the deception and cover-up, and the bully pulpit of the government and the media.

You have had 16 years to prove a conspiracy.
You are no closer now then you were in 2001.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Why do you keep talking about black boxes? It’s a data recording device? Data goes to the recorder. Back feed protection is probably provided by diodes. There might be a pin out for communications errors. The pre flight checks makes it impossible the system was hacked before flight.

It takes about an hour to splice in a car radio. Splicing in a flight system is almost impossible during a short flight.





You're assuming they have to do this with no preparation. No successful hacker anywhere does that. (Except in the movies, where all they have to do is type real fast for a few seconds on a keyboard.)

I keep repeating this and you keep ignoring it: they would lease a similar plane first.

Whoever did this conspiracy certainly would have the resources to gain access to a similar plane.

On the similar plane, our hacker can spend hours and hours figuring absolutely anything you care to list about the autopilot, black box (if he wants to enter fake flight data), and well........... whatever he wants. (He could actually spend years if he needed to, if the attack were planned far enough ahead of time)



You have to know the language of the flight computers. It’s probably not windows. The flight computers probably have a proprietary version of Unix. The cockpit control panels would have to be removed. Accessing the flight computers would take understanding of a closed source system with a specific language, with specific hardware, and rings of security.

And you still need to instal a transmitter, receiver, and antenna.



Actually, the hijackers don't need most of that at all.

The hacker wouldn't actually go on the plane with them. He or she would assemble a kit.

The hijackers only need to know where to plug the kit in. And maybe not even that, if they had an inside man in the ground crew.

The hacker, of course, would need to know all that. But many hackers do, and some of them hate the government enough to participate in a hijacking (if they were lied to and told it was for their favorite cause).






Anything that is actuated by hand mechanical controls with hydraulics cannot not be controlled by the flight computers.


It doesn't have to be controlled by the flight computers. My point all along has been that you could use a computer to do more than just control the autopilot. You can add robotics to your "hack". (Hack is a general term that describes more than merely exchanging 1's and 0's. )






Possible is not proof. And there is zero proof the flight controls were “hacked”.


The plane hit a building at over 500 mph, when a much slower speed would have been just as effective at accomplishing the terrorists' goals.

That's a good way to destroy evidence.

The official story doesn't really have a lot more evidence. Hell, the corpse of hani hanjour has yet to be identified. They can't even positively prove he was there!

But for some reason you believe it anyway.



new topics




 
42
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join