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: 110
40
<< 107  108  109   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


One, false argument by you. The jet went into its dive, then accelerated. It has been explained to you kinetic energy increases exponentially with velocity.

KE = .5 x mass x velocity ^ 2

kinetic energy at 150 units of speed for 150,000 units of weight is 1.6 x 10^9

Same mass at 500 units of speed, KE is 1.8 x 10^10.

So, going to 500 mph raises the kinetic energy available to do damage by a magnitude.

Two, you don’t get the whole black box thing. It reads data. The flight computer only sends data to the flight recorder. The lines from the computers that feeds the data to the flight recorder are probably only one direction, out puts. The circuitry physically only allows data from the flight computers to the flight recorder. Diodes at the circuit board level are probably installed to physical block any potential noise that might go from the flight recorder to the flight computer. Protect the flight computers from any shorts or spikes that might occur in the recorder.

If the pins on the flight computers that send data to the flight recorder are out puts only, there is no why to program the flight computer from the flight recorder. It would be like trying to shut off a tape player by forcing voltage into the magnetic writing head.

Three, if there was a data port? The flight computers probably lockout the data port to prevent accidental reprogramming if the jet is in flight. And there is a good change the data port only allows access to memory. Thinking you are going to fly a jet from a link to only memory locations to update firmware and grab data is a fantasy. And if the hack could let you have some measure of control, the flight computers probably have to be taken off line to get the data port to accept the uploaded hack and install the hack into the OS.

Four, what simulator was bought to practice the hacking?

Five, show the simulator is not just a simulator. Show that simulators have the same flight computers. No emulators.

Six, you cannot hack hardware that is physically set by non programmable electronics other than bypassing the hardware with spliced components.

Bottom line, you are still going to have to remove panels, physical splice into the data highways to the flight controls, and probably install some electrical motors/ servos. Or shut down the flight computers to upload the hack. But it is highly unlikely there be enough access to remotely control a jet through a data port only designed for firmware updates and reading data.

Reality is a frigid female dog.


edit on 17-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed a bit.

edit on 17-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Restated




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You....



www.abovetopsecret.com...

The official story doesn't really have a lot more evidence.

Another false argument by you...


Other than radar data backed flight controllers backed by an inflight pilot that radioed in real time a large commercial jet hit the pentagon backed by a 100 plus eyewitnesses that attest to a large commercial jet hitting the pentagone backed by clipped trees and light poles backed by a engine clipping a concrete wall backed by construction equipment pushed towards the pentagon backed by a large entrance hole in the shape of wings and a tail section backed by damage consist with a large jet impact backed by security footage backed by wreckage backed by recovered luggage backed by recovered remains backed by DNA testing backed by coroner oversight backed by families receiving remains backed by first responders backed by recovery crews backed by construction crews......
edit on 17-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
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.


If we can use strict definitions here, there is no question a conspiracy took place. The only question is just who the conspirators were.

The government, by way of its 911 Commission, the media, NIST and a variety of other official sources have had 16 years to prove their conspiracy theory is correct. They have failed in 16 years worth of repeating false statements.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Then give an example what is failed.

Then give an example of what has more credible evidence than the towers collapsing from inward bowing and buckling, that it was known fires would lead to WTC 7 failure around 2pm on 9/11 due to bulging in WTC 7’s structure, the large entrance whole at the pentagon was made by a large commercial jet as attested to by a 100 plus witnesses as proven by Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and a jet crashed at shanksville as attested to by witnesses backed by over a 1000 recovery workers.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
This is lazy personal incredulity disguised as intellectual rigor - the more evidence you present, the more stubborn and banal the denials get.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Then give an example what is failed.

Then give an example of what has more credible evidence than the towers collapsing from inward bowing and buckling, that it was known fires would lead to WTC 7 failure around 2pm on 9/11 due to bulging in WTC 7’s structure, the large entrance whole at the pentagon was made by a large commercial jet as attested to by a 100 plus witnesses as proven by Scientists for 9/11 Truth, and a jet crashed at shanksville as attested to by witnesses backed by over a 1000 recovery workers.



A shorter list would be what has not failed.

No airliners in PA or DC, forged FDR for 77, blatant fraud from NIST, explosive demolition not fires, and on and on.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Let’s start with you discrediting the hundreds of civilians that attest to large commercial jets crashing at those sites.

To say they are lying with no proof is slander.
edit on 19-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fix



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And you have never refuted the papers by Scientists for 9/11 Truth that proved beyond a reasonable doubt a large jet crashed at the pentagon.

You have never explained what remains were released to the surviving family members of flight 77 and 93.

So now you admit a jet hit the pentagon? Then prove how the entrance hole was made by something other than a large jet.
edit on 19-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 19-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous


One, false argument by you. The jet went into its dive, then accelerated. It has been explained to you kinetic energy increases exponentially with velocity.

KE = .5 x mass x velocity ^ 2

kinetic energy at 150 units of speed for 150,000 units of weight is 1.6 x 10^9

Same mass at 500 units of speed, KE is 1.8 x 10^10.

So, going to 500 mph raises the kinetic energy available to do damage by a magnitude.


I know quite a lot about kinetic energy, and its relationship to speed. I also know that slow bullets often do more real damage on impact than do fast bullets, because of the way momentum transfers from one point to another.

A very fast impact will cause more "chemical energy of deformation" , by which I mean it will break more chemical bonds on impact. However, this could mean you are reducing 10 cubic feet of material to total ash, but having no effect at all on the surrounding material.

That is why sometimes a faster bullet does less harm to a person. It utterly wrecks the tissue it interacts with but ultimately only manages to interact with a small amount of tissue. A slower bullet may send a shockwave through the target's whole torso, causing multiple organs to rupture (but not be totally destroyed, just destroyed enough they don't work anymore.)

Similarly, a slower impact to the Pentagon could potentially send shockwaves through the structure, affecting personell much farther from the point of impact, but not really reducing any of the material it interacts with to ash, or anything like that.


But none of that matters to this discussion anyway, because the attack was clearly symbolic in nature, not strategic.

You're telling me the attackers were willing to run a heightened risk of failing to hit the building at all, just for the hope of increasing the kinetic energy of the impact?

If I were about to sacrifice my own life in an attack, I think I would put certainty of success at a higher priority than that. So as to be sure my sacrifice would not be in vain.





Two, you don’t get the whole black box thing. It reads data. The flight computer only sends data to the flight recorder. The lines from the computers that feeds the data to the flight recorder are probably only one direction, out puts. The circuitry physically only allows data from the flight computers to the flight recorder. Diodes at the circuit board level are probably installed to physical block any potential noise that might go from the flight recorder to the flight computer. Protect the flight computers from any shorts or spikes that might occur in the recorder.


That's because it doesn't matter enough to the discussion to be worth getting that detail right.

Honestly who cares which box does what? All them are equally hackable.



If the pins on the flight computers that send data to the flight recorder are out puts only, there is no why to program the flight computer from the flight recorder. It would be like trying to shut off a tape player by forcing voltage into the magnetic writing head.


You're arguing semantics. Who cares what the "thing that controls the autopilot" is called. Using the wrong word to describe someone's electronic product's name doesn't show ignorance about electronics.

If anything, it shows you understand that a circuit board is a circuit board, no matter what someone chooses to name it.

If it's name were "Charly" and I called it "Fred", that would do nothing to change the way it responds to the 1's and 0's I'm sending it.




Three, if there was a data port? The flight computers probably lockout the data port to prevent accidental reprogramming if the jet is in flight. And there is a good change the data port only allows access to memory. Thinking you are going to fly a jet from a link to only memory locations to update firmware and grab data is a fantasy. And if the hack could let you have some measure of control, the flight computers probably have to be taken off line to get the data port to accept the uploaded hack and install the hack into the OS.


Yeah. You probably wouldn't want to hack "Charly" (or whatever the thing that controls the autopilot is called) mid flight. Better to do that on the ground.

But you will need to use a robotics hack of some sort if you want to have access to the flight surfaces, since the autopilot doesn't have access to those.

Mind you, the maneuver we saw only requires the most rudimentary of adjustments to those controls. And it doesn't require them to be made with any quickness or manipulated on the fly. The fine tuning adjustments to the way the plane is descending can be made via the engines, with the flight surfaces fixed in place.



Four, what simulator was bought to practice the hacking?


Why would that matter?

You're just going to take the numbers it generates for things like heading and altitude and speed, and use those for your false recording. You're not actually going to record the images you see on the screen or anything like that.

Those numbers are standardized measurements that will apply equally to any platform you apply them to.



Five, show the simulator is not just a simulator. Show that simulators have the same flight computers. No emulators.


That also doesn't matter.

Once you have the numbers, you can insert them into the FDR's own native program.



Six, you cannot hack hardware that is physically set by non programmable electronics other than bypassing the hardware with spliced components.


That is true. You would basically find the logic circuit that you want to bypass, then create a similar logic circuit that has your own set of instructions, and physically splice it into the same output wires as the original circuit had used.

You don't have to replace everything, though. Just the parts you want to change.

But remember that in 2001, electronic were being made obsolete by newer and better chips at an alarming rate. Whatever you used to bypass the original logic circuit would probably be not only equal to it in performance, but much better. You would essentially be giving it an upgrade as you hacked it.




Bottom line, you are still going to have to remove panels, physical splice into the data highways to the flight controls, and probably install some electrical motors/ servos. Or shut down the flight computers to upload the hack. But it is highly unlikely there be enough access to remotely control a jet through a data port only designed for firmware updates and reading data.

Reality is a frigid female dog.



Yeah. I think we agree they would need an inside man working on a maintenance crew, or perhaps an entire crew brought in under the guise of an "outside contractor here to fix a particular problem", or something like that.

The plan doesn't work without some of the hacking having been done before the plane took off.


But try to remember that the official story also calls for someone on the inside to have played a role in smuggling the box knives onboard.
edit on 20-10-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: changed "you have to replace everything" to "you DONT have to replace everything" I had mispoke.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Actually I should be clear. The need for some ground work depends on which kind of hack we are doing.


Possibility 1: Hacking the autopilot itself, with minimal robotics in the cockpit.

Possibility 2: a fully robotic hack. Inserting wires into the controls themselves, to send false signals to the things those controls manipulate. So instead of turning a knob with your hand and having a sensor detect its position and relay that to whatever thing that knob controls, you hack the sensor, and send a false signal indicating a position.

Basically you control the controls with servo motors and false signals. Ignoring the autopilot system entirely.

This second possibility runs into the problem that it requires constant signals from the ground (or another plane flying nearby), which would be hard to give it.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
But try to remember that the official story also calls for someone on the inside to have played a role in smuggling the box knives onboard.


No it doesn't. You were allowed to carry knives with blades up to 4 inches, and box cutters onto the plane. The only thing they might have had that they weren't supposed to take on the plane was possibly pepper spray, but that is easy to sneak on a plane in a bag.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeap, not to mention I've snuck in a few more interesting items than just a pocket knife too long...

Airport security was lax as anything and racially / gender bias.

But also, isn't less, More?

If you were going to pull off such a stunt as a governmental agency, I'm pretty sure, they would try to include as FEW amount of extra personnel as possible, since loose lips sink ships.

While I'm not sold on the total story still, I also am not doubting planes did the damage and people were on those planes, it would of been the way to do such a thing, even if you were doing a false flag deal, why fake something, when doing the real thing would be easier, just cater context to your will.

FBI convinces plenty of would be bombers to buy fake crap in stings, why wouldn't deep state actors not be able to do the same with this event, just it not be a sting... On top of that, your " targets ", aren't around afterwards to talk.

Still am not sold on any story really, we will have more as well, only they will be much more intricate if the above is onto anything, which is scary, if you thought that was well planned.

People will only get more intelligent, they certainly can't get any dumber.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous



But try to remember that the official story also calls for someone on the inside to have played a role in smuggling the box knives onboard.


Boxcutters was generic term used by Media to describe knives carried by hijackers

Hijackers used variety of knives, common "pocket knives like Swiss Army and Leatherman, utility knives called Stanley Knives



An adapted 9/11 Commission chart of knives purchased by the hijackers. [Source: 9/11 Commission]
Several 9/11 hijackers purchase multi-use tools and small knives that “may actually have been used in the attacks.” according to the 9/11 Commission. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 248-249]
On July 8, Flight 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta buys two Victorinox Swiss Army knives at Zurich Airport, Switzerland, while on his way to Spain (see July 8-19, 2001). He possibly attempts to buy box cutters in Florida on August 27. On August 30, he buys a Leatherman multi-tool in Boynton Beach, Florida. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 4, 85]
On August 13, Flight 175 hijackers Marwan Alshehhi, Fayez Ahmed Banihammad, and Hamza Alghamdi buy knives and multi-tools. Alshehhi buys a Cliphanger Viper and an Imperial Tradesman Dual Edge, both short-bladed knives. Banihammad buys a Stanley two-piece snap knife set, and Alghamdi buys a Leatherman Wave multi-tool. All purchases are made in the same city, though the 9/11 Commission does not say where this is. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 17]
On August 27, Flight 77 hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi buys Leatherman multi-tool knives. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 27] Although it is unknown whether any of these knives and tools are used on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission will point out, “While FAA rules did not expressly prohibit knives with blades under four inches long, the airlines’ checkpoint operations guide (which was developed in cooperation with the FAA), explicitly permitted them.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 84] Regarding Flight 93, personal financial records do not reflect weapons being purchased by any of the hijackers. However, the FBI will reportedly recover “14 knives or portions of knives, including a box cutter,” at the crash site



www.historycommons.org...

In 1999 number of probes were launched by Bin Laden to test feasibility of hijacking aircraft

2 Saudi "students" on flight from Phoenix to Washington DC (America West Flight 90) walked from coach to First
class on pretext of looking for bathroom - actions unnerved flight crew enough that on stop in Dayton OH they were
removed from plane by FBI. Subject to interrogation - which denied everything .

An operative Walid Attash aka Walid the Gimp (after losing leg in Afghanistan) made several flights
carrying knives to test response of security (currently locked up in Gitmo)

Carried Stanley knives on pretext of being art student (carried art supplies) to get through security

Established that was possible to carry knives onto aircraft

Hijackers carried Mace/pepper spray on American 11 - used to force passengers out of first class to back of aircraft

United 93 hijackers had fake bomb made from clay with wires sticking out to intimidate passengers



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Hello, I post a message to this forum for the first time.

I'm Japanese. And I wonder if there are some Japanese on this forum.

But I really doubt the mainstream September 11 attacks stories.



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: jkszcl7

star.....Texas here....I'm not buying it........I smell a rat



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: jkszcl7
Hello, I post a message to this forum for the first time.

I'm Japanese. And I wonder if there are some Japanese on this forum.

But I really doubt the mainstream September 11 attacks stories.


Anybody with a curious mind doubts the official narrative. There were a handful of Japanese citizens killed at WTC, and many years ago the Japanese government noted there had not been any proper investigations done.

The official role of the US government is to suppress information and investigations in the name of "national security."

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much?



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Anybody with a curious mind looks for answers instead of making repeated denials without offering alternative explanations - you were asked PAGES AGO what your explanation was for where Flights 93 and 77 went, if they did not crash in Shanksville and the Pentagon, respectively.

Where are the answers your curious mind produced after 16 years?
edit on 21-10-2017 by blackaspirin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: jkszcl7

On United flight 93 was Japanese student - Toshiya Kuge

Played American style football in his college - considered to be among one of the attackers against hijackers



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 107  108  109   >>

log in

join