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.

 

Autonomous Flight, High-G Turns, Hijackers Alive, and Blank Recorders

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Notice the use of the word "NOW" standard. Sometime after 1996. Do you know how airlines do upgrades? When a plane goes in for inspection, once every 5 years or however long it is, they upgrade something. It's not "Oh, Boeing came out and said to put this is, let's ground the fleet for 3 months while we upgrade it!" Why do you think when the FAA comes out with a mod they give the airlines 5 years or more to do it?

That comment is ALSO talking about 757/767s built AFTER 1996. When they rolled off the production line, they had the EICAS system installed in them. The planes used on 9/11 IIRC were older than 1996 models.

That also doesn't mean that they have FBW systems. BOEING is the one that says the first plane they EVER built that had an FBW system was the 777. That quote was from a BOEING test pilot.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
That's kind of hit and miss, don't you think?

While it may be true, what you say doesn't eliminate the possibility. The 9/11 planes could of been purposefully upgraded for this.

[edit on 10/7/06 by SteveR]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
heres boeing's news about macdonnell douglas in 1997
using something different than remote control
in their famous x-36 program

The X-36 is remotely controlled by a pilot in a ground station cockpit that receives an "out the window" view from a camera in the aircraft, complete with an overlay of a .-up display. This pilot-in-the-loop approach eliminates the need for expensive and complex autonomous flight control systems and allows for a quick-paced, aggressive flight test program

www.boeing.com...

so what is this " pilot in the loop approach????"

guess i'll hafto look that up MYSELF TOO!!

we're getting closer to proof that it COULD HAVE BEEN DONE!!



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
[edit on 10-7-2006 by cpdaman]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
is anyone aware that this argument involves more people than just those who are either pro gov't coverup or " it had to be terrorists"

to those who are procover up are u aware of the metaphor to "trojan horses" being used in this argument and voyage to uncover the truth

the reality is that the involvement of a FEW people who appear to be pro cover up are actually "trojan horses" who use websites and other media to bring light to possible coverup ideas such as no plane hit pentagon and have alternative video to make it "look" like a cover up. the point/ when these theories (used pentagon plane as an expample) are debunked it gives other who beleive it had to be terrorists" a false conformation that the alternative story "conspiracy" was fake when in reality this was planted ( pentagon plane video is possible, didn't reasearch it enough). and the a general weakness of the pro gov't cover up people is that they; generally being open minded individuals they are some times limited in there ability to comprehen the potency of ill-founded or poorly presented theories in discrediting good research at least in the minds of others

the weakness in the thinking of the "it had to be terrorist" camp is that good people don't think to look for criminal activity. Good people don't have criminal minds and they don't think criminally, and therefore when we have something put in front of us like "9/11 " something that we all hold so precious and dear, we're not apt to look behind that, at what the reality is behind the scenes, and they were counting on good people to do absolutely nothing and to assume absolutely nothing.

if u are not skilled in critical thinking than your opinion in this argument lacks any weight

does it even matter. nope most of the people in the world belevie they are doing the right thing even when they may not be. and when u have a bunch of people beleving they are doint the right thing and tellng the right story and they are misled by a few "genius minds" then it doesn't matter there will always be a few very powerful greedy people in the world who carry out hideos acts and good people listen to them and tell there story convincingly and then those people get harrased by the people who can see the bigger picture when in reality those people really have nothing to do with it, your chasing "ghosts"



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
No one is saying that it COULDN'T have been done. If you even read my posts, I have even said that it COULD have been done, but it would require extensive mods to the plane.

And yet again, you're talking apples and oranges. The X-36 was a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for those that might not know) and designed from the ground up to be remotely flown.

As far as digital flight control computers being hackable, not by an outside source. They don't have a transmit/receive capability in them, because they don't need it. They don't tie into any communications system on the plane.

SteveR how would they know what planes would be used? And how would they upgrade them without the airlines noticing? There are too many holes in that idea.

1. The planes change routes and fly nowhere near where they want them on 9/11.
2. The planes (or at least one of them) break on 9/11.
3. The plane(s) crash before 9/11.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
So you are saying we are deliberately being misled by fake pro-coverup material?
And the point being.. the pro-coverup folk always get their theories/sources refuted? Just trying to fig what you are saying..

[edit on 10/7/06 by SteveR]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As far as digital flight control computers being hackable, not by an outside source. They don't have a transmit/receive capability in them, because they don't need it. They don't tie into any communications system on the plane.


Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't a remote control system need a functionality to transmit and receive, or at least receive, data?


Originally posted by Zaphod58
SteveR how would they know what planes would be used? And how would they upgrade them without the airlines noticing? There are too many holes in that idea.


If this plan was indeed carried out by the Government, or NORAD, or Mossad, whatever, then I'm sure they'd have enough resources, clearance and expertise to upgrade the planes. But the whole idea we're trying to get across here is that no upgrades were needed...



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
zaphod what is your point what does this have anything to do with it

wether the planes were or were not flown by computer or people or can matter less.

they're "could" be a cover up inside involvement if ANY of the alternatie theories hold weight, even if u could discredit one or two it is a mute point

the people who belevie there is a cover up DONT know the whole story, they are making Educated guesses and if some of them are off, the cover up can still be "the truth"

on the other hand the people who see any discrepency in an official story from the evidence are also jumping to conclusions by seeing this as conformation of a cover up it is much more complicated. but in truth there are so many discrepency's that it is nearly impossible for the open minded to trust the gov't was unaware or even trying to protect this from happening

[edit on 10-7-2006 by cpdaman]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The remote control system yes. But someone was talking earlier about digital flight computers being hacked by the tower or someone on the ground. Flight control computers don't HAVE a transmit/receive capability because they don't NEED one.

And yes upgrades ARE needed. I can't believe that all these years we've had this system that would let them land a plane by remote, they haven't used it ONCE. No mechanic or Boeing engineer, or ANYONE but the GERMAN minister of defense has EVER come forward and talked about it. You're talking AT LEAST dozens of people that know about it. The airline mechanics, the people at Boeing that put it in, the people at Boeing that DESIGNED it, etc. BUT NOT ONE has ever talked about it.

[edit on 7/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This is getting confusing, perhaps because I'm no expert in these matters


Where did you learn about onboard avionics? Any place on the web that we can check out all these facts and how they work on the Boeing models?

I figure it's pointless to debate this unless we... (probably just I) understand what we're talking about.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
BUT NOT ONE has ever talked about it.


Fair enough, but isn't there a chance that it was classified? Afterall the article alludes to it being under Norad's control.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I've had close to 25 years working on/around planes, starting when I was little. And reading pretty much everything I can possibly read about them. I'll hunt down some links to the basics and U2U them to you so you can read up on them somewhat and get a better feel for how they work.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
and since at LEAST AUGUST 1998

they have had autonomous flights, long range even.


www.sciencedaily.com...

bushes family and their buddies SURELY COULD HAVE pulled this off

and what do you know.boeing is named here also

lets see,
electronic controls.........check.
computer operated.........check.
navigation system............check.
alls we need now is.....any body???.........communications to the plane........check..
oh yeah,,
laptop/computer with communications..........
hacker.........

am i missing anything??

i wonder WHY they want that hacker EXTRADITED so badly...
maybe their LAST ONE quit.....or...or, was gonna TALK



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I've had close to 25 years working on/around planes, starting when I was little. And reading pretty much everything I can possibly read about them. I'll hunt down some links to the basics and U2U them to you so you can read up on them somewhat and get a better feel for how they work.


Good, thankyou
. The only planes I know alot about are WW2 era, quite irrelevant to this discussion



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
And ALL of those long range autonomous flights were UAVs. DESIGNED FROM THE GROUND UP for it. NOT commercial planes. You keep talking about planes that were PURPOSE BUILT for flying autonomously, NOT planes that would have to be modified for it.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Zaphod58
BUT NOT ONE has ever talked about it.


Fair enough, but isn't there a chance that it was classified? Afterall the article alludes to it being under Norad's control.


Any thoughts?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
'Trojan horse' is used as a metphor for a something that appears friendly but actually conceals a surreptitious attacker


people part of the cover up or maybe just trying to keep the official story more beleived intentionally throw fake conspiracy's into the arugument they make these up and do so in a way in which they can be seen to be hoax's with enough research. so that when these fake hoax's are debunked that makes other beleive the whole cover up is nonsense get it



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Zaphod58
BUT NOT ONE has ever talked about it.


Fair enough, but isn't there a chance that it was classified? Afterall the article alludes to it being under Norad's control.


Any thoughts?


Possible, but I still think highly unlikely. What would it matter if it was classified or if anyone knew about it. It's not like the hijackers could go in and alter it. You can't access the flight control computer software from inside the plane, without some highly specialized equipment.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I think the point is that no-one did anything like that in the plane. The 'attack' was conceived and carried out by persons not airbourne. That's the theory



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join