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.

 

Anyone here ever trained on a flight simulator?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
Lets start off with the telephone calls, that one is fairly easy...


Not really. Some of the people who made phone calls weren't supposed to be on the plane they actually took, giving no time for the preparations you describe. Others were reportedly talking for a prolonged period of time. It's hard to believe that could be achieved by cutting and pasting bits of old calls together.


Originally posted by goose
Now onto the simulators or whatever new technology they have, one of the problems of course would be finding someone of the skill level to do this...


Other problems would be that none of the planes were fly by wire, so they'd require modifications for remote control, including the installation of cameras to provide feedback to the pilots, all without anyone noticing.

Oh, and then there's the latency. Imagine you're trying to correct your position while flying into one of the towers, say. How long does it take for a) an image indicating a problem to be filmed by the camera and transmitted to you, and b) you to respond and move your controls, and c) the signals to be transmitted back to the plane and make the move you've requested? Even if it's only a second (which would be remarkably fast), at 4 or 500mph you've still travelled hundreds of feet, no time to do anything complicated at all.


Originally posted by goose
Norad actually was having training going on that morning of 9/11/01, there were 32 pretend hi-jackings being carried out that morning...


Nope. The FAA did have suspicions about several planes that morning, but there's no evidence whatsoever that any of those were related to the wargames, and plenty of more plausible alternative explanations available.


[edit on 14-8-2005 by ashmok]




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Actually I've already said I doubt my theory, thanks to freedom_for_sum. But the more I read up on it, the more I begin to wonder. I still feel certain it was planned and orchestrated by the government.

And wasn't two of the planes of the type that was lost in 911 already had software designed to take over the controls if hi-jacked. At any rate one thing I know for sure I do not believe the official story, it makes no sense at all.
Here are some interesting websites that talks about the remote control theory and the other interesting factors that makes one doubt the official story.

www.propagandamatrix.com...
www.randycrow.com...

Timothy McNiven, a 29-year U.S. Defense Department employee still under contract with the government, says his military unit way back in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers exactly like what occurred on 9/11.

NORAD has the capability to fly planes by remote control. (Because NORAD has the capability to take over the controls and fly planes by remote control France refuses to cooperate with NORAD. Remote control flying is logical considering planes have auto pilots which one would assume can and are being hacked.) Shortly before Sept. 11 NORAD ran exercises that tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures for planes hijacked from US cities and flown to DC and New York City with the Pentagon and Towers as targets. So the bad guys had a dress rehearsal of what happened Sept. 11 right before Sept. 11.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
You seem to forget there have been numerous hijackings in the past, only that time they did what no-one ever thought possible and they flew them into buildings on a suicide mission.
Anyone would think that this was the first time there had ever been a hijacking.
And what do you expect them to do about it anyway? Shoot them down? Because that's what some people believe happend to the plane that crashed in the sticks, they weren't going to shoot the planes before down any more than they havn't done in the past when aircraft have been hijacked.

And you can't just 'hack in' to an autopilot computer, it isn't the movies. It would have to have some sort of radio based datalink for that to be possible and they don't.

And it's not really unlikey for there to be exercises involving the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the Whitehouse, etc as they all are/were world famous landmarks and also central hubs of government, defence and the economy.


[edit on 14-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
And wasn't two of the planes of the type that was lost in 911 already had software designed to take over the controls if hi-jacked.


Only if you're willing to take the word of the late Joe Vialls (if you're talking about the so-called "Home Run"), because he's not exactly supported by a lot of evidence.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Amazing but apparently the tapes could have been made much easier than even I thought, here is a link that tells of the new technology, along with other info on 911. Below that you find a link with info on a robotic plane that has flown across the Pacific ocean all by itself, wow. It has links to old news articles on this also.
www.apfn.net...

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice,
scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech
patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he

asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's
team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality
recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements

www.public-action.com...
A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.

The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.

The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737 flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... [NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911 crashes were Boeing 757s, two were Boeing 767s]

It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
It's COMPLETELY different to fly a Golbal Hawk or a Predator than a commercial airliner by remote control. The UAV is preprogrammed with a flight route they want it to take, and it can be changed by inputting course corrections into the computer, which then uplinks to the UAV. About the only time it is hand flown is take off and landing.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The B-777 is the first Boeing aircraft that is fully fly-by-wire. The B-757 & B767 are hydraulically controlled and there is no computer interpretting the pilot's inputs and sending those inputs to the control surfaces.
There is currently no way for fly-by-wire aircraft to be remotely piloted without significant modifications and their associated costs.

Can you provide some links to this information? I don't buy that, as it is my understanding that most commercial passenger airliners are equipped with fly by wire systems, and have been since the mid 80's. In fact the American Awack Aircraft is equipped with transponders for that purpose specificly, is it not?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Boeing's first application of fly-by-wire, an advanced technology glass flightdeck with five liquid crystal displays, comparatively large scale use of composites (10% by weight), and advanced and extremely powerful engines

www.airliners.net...



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The B-777 is the first Boeing aircraft that is fully fly-by-wire. The B-757 & B767 are hydraulically controlled and there is no computer interpretting the pilot's inputs and sending those inputs to the control surfaces.
There is currently no way for fly-by-wire aircraft to be remotely piloted without significant modifications and their associated costs.

Can you provide some links to this information? I don't buy that, as it is my understanding that most commercial passenger airliners are equipped with fly by wire systems, and have been since the mid 80's. In fact the American Awack Aircraft is equipped with transponders for that purpose specificly, is it not?


Since have flown the b757/767 I can state with authority that both the B757 & B767 have hydraulically actuated controls. However, given the internet what it is, and that you don't know me from Adam, here is a Google search based on the expression "Boeing's first fly by wire" that results in several returns describing the B777 as Boeing's first aircraft that is fly by wire. Even the B737, which has been in production since the 70's, still has hydraulic controls.

Without spending too much time researching this issue, here is an Airworthiness Directive put out by Australia's CASA describing the vulnerability of aircraft control should all three hydraulic systems fail following structural failure of a B767.

Airbus was the first aircraft manufacturer that incorporated fly by wire in the A320 series aircraft.

As far as American AWACS: That airframe is based on the B-707 and the only fly-by-wire it has are cables and pulleys. A transponder's only purpose is to allow Air Traffic Control to see information (call sign, altitude, groundspeed) associated with a radar return on an aircraft. It has nothing to do with flight controls.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
No right, I agree, the government was involved. But if they were gonna use sims, why train the hijackers at Pensacola NAS?

ref: prisonplanet.com...

Say the government were behind it. The hijackers worked for CIA and knew they worked for CIA. Why train them? Their objective is to get into the cockpit, not to fly the plane. There was no point. If they were in on the plot from the beginning, there would have been no need for training, since the plane was going to piloted from the ground.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Did you actually READ the article?

"U.S. Sen. Bob Graham is requesting information on published reports of a POSSIBLE Pensacola Naval Air Station tie-in to last week's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C."

"As many as four of 19 suspected hijackers MAY HAVE participated during the 1990s in the base's flight training program for foreign military trainees, according to reports in The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine."

There's a whole lot of "may have" "possible" and other words like that in the article.

Emphasis added by me.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Yes, I did. The reason for these improbabilities is the date - 17th of September, 2001, six days after 9/11. My apologies for not finding a more definite article. here it is.

ref: 100777.com...&ei=DgMDQ-7JMpaGapCh9UA



he Pensacola Naval Air Station is recognized as the premier naval installation in the Department of the Navy. The Complex in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties employs more than 16,000 military and 7,400 civilian personnel. It is also where as many as four of the FBI's nineteen suspected suicide hijackers participated in the facility's flight training program for foreign military trainees in the 1990's.(3) Three of these individuals listed their addresses on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.(4) Namely Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who allegedly were two of the four men that hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 and subsequently crashed in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania, and Ahmed Alghamdi*, alleged co-hijacker of United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center. Military records also confirm that the three used their address as 10 Radford Boulevard, a base roadway on which residences for foreign military flight trainees are located.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The original Newsweek article on this said of the Pensacola training...


But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates
www.wanttoknow.info...


...so there's no guarantee it's the same people. On this point, another article says...


One factor complicating the investigation is that the hijackers' Arabic names are remarkably common. For example, when investigators went to the Naval Air Base in Pensacola, the address listed on a Florida driver's license issued to a Saeed Alghamdi in 1997, they learned that several people by that name had attended flight school there over the past 10 years.

"What we have here is a situation of people with identical names,? said Harry White, public affairs officer at the base. He said the school has had more than 1,600 people with the first name Saeed, spelled various ways, and more than 200 with the surname Alghamdi.
www.humanunderground.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Maybe...but the issue isnt the fact that they trained at Pensacola or anywhere for that matter, its the fact they trained AT ALL. Hijackers would need no aircraft training if all the planes were controlled from the ground.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join