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.

 

757/767 remote control flight...terrorists didnt do it

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I got this from a yahoo answers post, is it true that no one can over-ride the cockpit because of the software. So if this is true then how did the planes crash when it was taken over my a remote control.



Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

answers.yahoo.com...


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Actually I believe that some of the information that you have posted has been brought up here before, or at least parts of it.

I remember some of the details like the line where it says " This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck. "

I don't remember which thread it is in, but I'm sure some of the "9/11 CT'ers" here will be able to point you there.



edit to add:

I'm not too keen on the idea of remote controlled planes doing the dirty deeds of 9/11. While not as bad as the "hologram theory", it is a little too incredible for me. No offense, just my opinion.

[edit on 1/7/2007 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   
They are not really 'remote controlled' in that sense. They just pre-programe the flight route and the on board computer flies the plane.

Pretty easy really...


A computerized, fully integrated flight management system (FMS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the airplane from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the FMS assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

Source



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
what you mean is, Muslims didn't do it, but evil white people did it and tried to blame it on evil muslims?

Planes can be pre-programmed to fly certain routes, just as they can be piloted to fly routes. What difference does high rates of G's make to people who are about to commit suicide?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
Planes can be pre-programmed to fly certain routes, just as they can be piloted to fly routes. What difference does high rates of G's make to people who are about to commit suicide?


6-7 g's is very hard on the body and anybody not trained to handle it will pass out. How could an untrained person flying those high g's be still be able to handle the plane and hit a specific target? Big airliners are a beast to fly, react very slowly and are not designed to do high g turns.

But of course if it didn't matter that they passed out...



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Big airliners are hard to turn, react slowly and are not designed to do high g's/

You are correct. Now wouldn't this still be the case even it the plane was remotely controlled? High G's place stress on the the airframe of planes, just as it would do to a body.

Where is the proof that the aircraft did fly at high levels of G force?. And are you suggesting they pulled these G's off in the final run-up to the towers, or on the actual journey to NY?

I also fail to see how NORAD has the abillity and authority to takeover the reigns of civilians planes, remotely? How is it done? Are they given a pilots eye view of the cockpit
Or did they have to be near the WTC whilst attempting to guide in the plane like a kid with a Toy radio plane? (extremely hard). Maybe it was the Israelis found dancing that guided it in?


[edit on 8-1-2007 by Peyres]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
I also fail to see how NORAD has the abillity and authority to takeover the reigns of civilians planes, remotely? How is it done? Are they given a pilots eye view of the cockpit
Or did they have to be near the WTC whilst attempting to guide in the plane like a kid with a Toy radio plane? (extremely hard). Maybe it was the Israelis found dancing that guided it in?


[edit on 8-1-2007 by Peyres]


Gee then i guess we can not really fly all the new UAVs without being near the area they fly into ? and thier is no such thing as real time feedback.


[edit on 8-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
yes and I guess there is no difference in the technology used by the military and bog standard civilian airlines?

Why would NORAD have monitors to control your average airliner?



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
As has already been explained a guy doesn't sit at a console and fly the plane.
It is a computer programe, you just put the coordinates into the computer and it flies the plane according to the flight plan.

You are making it seem far fetched by trying to make it seem more difficult and far-fetched than it is. 757 and 767 can be flown from take-off to landing with the onboard computer system.

The plane probably received airframe stress from the hi-G's, but so what. Any difficulty a person would have controling the plane would be compensated for if it was being controlled by the computer. In other words if the comp detected a stall the comp would react as needed to keep the plane under control.


With the Pegasus FMC, operators can choose optional software that enables elements of the future air navigation system (FANS). FANS functions provide operators with the ability to use advanced systems, such as global positioning system (GPS) sensors and satellite communications (SATCOM), to take full advantage of new communication, navigation and air traffic management systems for more efficient routing and decreased trans-oceanic traffic separation.


If the planes were set up with backdoor access to the computers it wouldn't be that hard to control the plane from an external computer, taking control of the on-board computer wirelessly using the Telnet protocol, and software such as LanDesk (to change the actual flight configurations on the planes computer). Or even using GPS, and a homing beacon as used by laser guided weapons. Remember the light that was seen on the towers before impact?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
one of the planes dipped their wings just before its crashed to maximise the impact of the wing span across the building. Why would an onboard computer do that if it was simply following a set path of co-ordinates?



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
yes and I guess there is no difference in the technology used by the military and bog standard civilian airlines?

Why would NORAD have monitors to control your average airliner?


No thier is not a lot of difference between the military and commercial aviation systems.

NORAD might want to save lifes by taking control of a commercial jet away from hijackers.


Originally posted by Peyres
one of the planes dipped their wings just before its crashed to maximise the impact of the wing span across the building. Why would an onboard computer do that if it was simply following a set path of co-ordinates?


Well if your talking about the second plane that hit the towers at an angle going through the side of the builidng actully did less damage then the first plane that hit straight on according to 911 commission and other reports.


[edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
one of the planes dipped their wings just before its crashed to maximise the impact of the wing span across the building. Why would an onboard computer do that if it was simply following a set path of co-ordinates?


Huh? How do you know why the wing dipped? Sry but you have no idea why the winged dipped. Maybe the the coordinates set had the plane turn just before it impacted. You do know planes turn by 'dipping' their wings in the direction it wants to turn right? Or maybe the computer switched off right before impact. I don't know, but it certainly doesn't dismiss the theory at all..



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
From what I have seen, watched, heard, read, been told, discovered….whatever, I believe that both flights that hit the towers were built specifically for this and both were remote controlled. Not a single soul was on any plane. My belief for this stems from several Raytheon executives whose names turned up on the planes passenger lists. Raytheon develops bunker buster missiles and Global Hawk technology amongst other things.

I can picture it now, the same day when all those drills were taking place, those men who were knowledgeable about those specific remote controlled planes were ordered to get them in the air. This of course set no alarms off as they were told it was to fit in with the exercises taking place that very same day.

Starting or booting up certain systems to allow these planes to fly would take a certain amount of people, those in the know anyway, to operate such a craft, then it could be as simple as taking a joystick, watching a screen and flying that baby where ever you want.

After they were in the air, both operating from separate booths, a single person or two, clocked them over their heads with a blunt object and took control of those flights. Afterwards their bodies were disposed off and conveniently had their names placed on several of the flights.

Of course this is just a theory and as to just how exactly it happened we might never know but I’m here now so I thought I'd just share my thoughts on it.


[edit on 9-1-2007 by Klaxmexalix]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Klaxmexalix]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix
From what I have seen, watched, heard, read, been told, discovered….whatever, I believe that both flights that hit the towers were built specifically for this and both were remote controlled. Not a single soul was on any plane.


That's where I have to raise the question...

Where are the passengers then? The ones whose names are associated with as being passengers on those flights.

This is exactly where the "No Plane" theory fails also, in my opinion.

Care to let us know what you think happened to the passengers?

edit = add underline, for emphasis

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Mechanic 32]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
^They don't need to have a joystick, just upload the coordinates to the on-board computers, so the computer piloted the plane on a path that took them right into the towers...It could have been done by one person.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix
From what I have seen, watched, heard, read, been told, discovered….whatever, I believe that both flights that hit the towers were built specifically for this and both were remote controlled. Not a single soul was on any plane.


That's where I have to raise the question...

Where are the passengers then? The ones whose names are associated with as being passengers on those flights.

This is exactly where the "No Plane" theory fails also, in my opinion.

Care to let us know what you think happened to the passengers?

edit = add underline, for emphasis

[edit on 1/9/2007 by Mechanic 32]

They are all dead, I don't think it was that hard to come to that conclusion was it?

The question should be: “Who were the passengers associated with the list”




[edit on 10-1-2007 by Klaxmexalix]



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
^They don't need to have a joystick, just upload the coordinates to the on-board computers, so the computer piloted the plane on a path that took them right into the towers...It could have been done by one person.

Yup, I was just trying to relate a possible scenario.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix
They are all dead, I don't think it was that hard to come to that conclusion was it?



I believe that they are indeed dead, but you said that not a single soul was on the planes. So what exactly happened to the passengers and crews, if they were not on the planes when they crashed?

What is your theory as to where the passengers and crews instead of being on the fateful flights? Your post does not indicate where the passengers and crews were presumed to be.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix
They are all dead, I don't think it was that hard to come to that conclusion was it?



I believe that they are indeed dead, but you said that not a single soul was on the planes. So what exactly happened to the passengers and crews, if they were not on the planes when they crashed?

What is your theory as to where the passengers and crews instead of being on the fateful flights? Your post does not indicate where the passengers and crews were presumed to be.


There may have been no passengers at all. The whole list may have been fabricated. I’ve read that over 100 names that turned up on the list were FBI employees. I’ve read that not one of the single supposed hijackers turned up on the list. It’s possible that some planes were switched during the morning as up to 22 planes were reported to be hijacked under the watch of NORAD who were performing exercise drills at the exact same time.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Peyres
one of the planes dipped their wings just before its crashed to maximise the impact of the wing span across the building. Why would an onboard computer do that if it was simply following a set path of co-ordinates?


Huh? How do you know why the wing dipped? Sry but you have no idea why the winged dipped. Maybe the the coordinates set had the plane turn just before it impacted. You do know planes turn by 'dipping' their wings in the direction it wants to turn right? Or maybe the computer switched off right before impact. I don't know, but it certainly doesn't dismiss the theory at all..


I'm not saying it dismisses it, I'm asking for you to explain it, and frankly....'the computer switched off before impact' is a load of rubbish.

Yes planes turn by dipping their wings, that is my POINT!, you can see how the plane started to turn just as it was about to hit the tower, the wing damage spanned the whole of the buildings width, this maximised the damage to the building. If the plane was being remotely controlled, it would of had to of been piloted to do so. Entering set co-ordinates in to a FCS does not constitute the remote control of a plane. It's just pre-set route planning.

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Peyres]

[edit on 10-1-2007 by Peyres]




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join