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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix

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.


Excuse me ..

May i know, what are the sources for your claims ?!
You'r keep saying that you have read, and read about that over 100 names that turned up on the list, were FBI employees .....

I'm curios to know your sources for these information.

Thank you.




posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


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



Oh, they MIGHT. That seals it then, NORAD did it.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


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



Oh, they MIGHT. That seals it then, NORAD did it.


Well i guess thats why so many companies have come up with new systems for in aircraft to make them remote control, including Boeing.

www.flightglobal.com...

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
what has that got to do with NORAD controlling planes remotely.

I repeat, a pre-determined flight path is NOT remote control.

Planes navigate either by GPS or VOR Beacons that are set on the ground. They fly from one to the other, and these waypoints are often set quite a distance away from each other. Unless the WTC has one sitting on its roof that transmits to civilian airliners, then its not very likely. Why did the planes turn on near imminent impact with the tower? Why did they fly with such precision? Because they were piloted by humans from the cockpit.

Jeez, at one point the 9/11 'truthers' were rambling on about military planes, or military pilots, because of the precision or the fact that some find it hard to beleive that a 'poor middle east' man couldn't possibly turn an aircraft (even when many on this forum have claimed that navigating or performing basic manoeuvres on modern aircraft is like eating ice cream) But now this theory has continue to evolve onto Big evil, smirking five star supreme yada yada, bohemion grove visiting Generals in Norad guiding in the planes through a tv screen.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
what has that got to do with NORAD controlling planes remotely.

I repeat, a pre-determined flight path is NOT remote control.

Planes navigate either by GPS or VOR Beacons that are set on the ground. They fly from one to the other, and these waypoints are often set quite a distance away from each other. Unless the WTC has one sitting on its roof that transmits to civilian airliners, then its not very likely. Why did the planes turn on near imminent impact with the tower? Why did they fly with such precision? Because they were piloted by humans from the cockpit.

Jeez, at one point the 9/11 'truthers' were rambling on about military planes, or military pilots, because of the precision or the fact that some find it hard to beleive that a 'poor middle east' man couldn't possibly turn an aircraft (even when many on this forum have claimed that navigating or performing basic manoeuvres on modern aircraft is like eating ice cream) But now this theory has continue to evolve onto Big evil, smirking five star supreme yada yada, bohemion grove visiting Generals in Norad guiding in the planes through a tv screen.


Well maybe because flguiht 77 was flying out of the perameters of the flight computer. The flgiht computer would have overrode a pilot tring to pull high G manuvers and flying at 500 mph feet off the ground.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
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.


Well you can call it what you want, 757/767 can be flown by the onboard computer from take-off to landing. I'm not calling it remote control. The route could have been programmed in using the telnet protocol like I said before.

Again maybe the turn was programed in just like the rest of the flight, if it was done that way. And if the onbaord computer was being hacked from the ground then why couldn't they turn off the software right before impact?

These are just guesses, but quite probable right?

[edit on 11/1/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
Planes navigate either by GPS or VOR Beacons that are set on the ground.


Not if the coordinates are set in the onboard computers, they'll fly the plane where you tell it to, via GPS. No need for VOR beacons.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Think it's safe to say that if they had taken control of the onboard computer, the pilots would have reported it.

People on the plane made calls and reported the hijacking.

Not to mention the guy who masterminded it openly acknowledges that they planned and executed the attacks.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Not to mention the guy who masterminded it openly acknowledges that they planned and executed the attacks.


You mean just like when thier is a bomb that goes off in Norhtern Ireland the IRA claim they did it, but does not mean they did do it. People and groups have been known to admit to things but did not actually do it.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
geocities.com...


Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.


...from Joe Vialls, another (W Cooper-irsh) anti-NWO soldier that went down -- RIP. ... I lived about 10 blocks from this. I heard these planes and more and more explosions. Wanna talk 'the Piers' -- I was there too, when bldg 7 and other were 'pulled' -- wanna talk 'blood on the walls' -- I volunteering in that graveyard for almost two weeks. Take it from a (public) witness. No holgrams. None. Here's the best of the best video. Maybe RC'd.

"Ghostflight United Airlines 175" (:35)
www.youtube.com...

"World Trade Center United 175 Very close rare" (:08)
www.youtube.com...

I don't care about 'fake' or 'holgram' planes, should they be existing -- fine, I don't doubt that for a moment, then, they got sick, sick equipment (HAARP and whatever the freaking else) around cities, to fake these sounds of jets on tape?!?! All, I wanna say now is, wtf?

Then, later, buildings down, Bush:

Bush Admits Lying to the Press
www.youtube.com...

Bush Caught Lying About September 11th
www.youtube.com...

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in... and I see there on the tv..."

Year, 2007: U.S. down $9,115,983,110,114.61, that's trillion.

www.brillig.com...


The estimated population of the United States is 303,559,460
so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,030.30.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.47 billion per day since September 29, 2006! Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!




[edit on 17-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I'm leaning toward the idea that the planes had unconscious people on board, or none at all.


Here's why...


This event was calculated. To reduce the risk of a failure of this operation, all uncertainties must be managed. To actually cross your fingers and hope the terrorists pull it off without failure would be too risky.


I think the real planes landed, drones took off then, and flew themselves into the towers first under automatic control, then visual steering.


Or, the planes were real, the passengers real, but they were depressurized, then remote controlled into the buildings.


Of course, I don't know what really happened. I'm just thinking of what I would do if I were a greedy, diabolical sonofa... with ambitions to rule the world.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dionysius9
 


Total agreement. Look what happened in the early 90s to the towers, bombing attempt, failed? Or a threat? Then there was the "training manual" for FEMA w/ the target over the towers, the signposts were/are there. To me, this seems an overlooked factor in the 'hijackings' leading to numerous 'still alive' terrorist/passenger reports, 'the planes are still active' reports, etc.

Also, here's another article about RC-controlled airplanes and how the mainstream media lies about the technology's existence:

www.public-action.com...

[edit on 17-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
Why would NORAD have monitors to control your average airliner?

Why would On-Star have controls to open your car
door when you lock yourself out ??? .....
why does the Space Shuttle have auto pilot to land the shuttle
when it re-enters the atmosphere ????? ....
cuz the pilots have to take about 15-20 minutes to reacquaint
themselves to gravity again and are disoriented ....

convenience and control .... big brother hard at work



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeta115
 


Zeta, that's too funny, like that direct approach. Seems like this technology has been around since at least the 60s and who knows what kind of 'back-engineered' equipment/technology exists. Seems to me like RC planes vs holgrams is the question at this point. Faking the sound, that's what kills me, there's the turbine/kickback/shockwave sound in the videos I posted, sort of a delay on the impact, but people aren't realizing how fast those things were/can go/going.

What I do know, as a witness, it that numerous bombs/explosives were used, admittedly and not. That should be on the record, as well as considered treasonous for what Rummy did/said on 9/10/01:

www.youtube.com...
911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 17-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Well this is a very interesting thread. Out of curiosity, if said tyranny and treason took place, does anyone think that those responsible would be held accountable? I really do not think so. I have not seen enough facts one way or another to make an informed opinion about what did or did not happen. I will say that there are interesting conspiracy theories



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by super D
 


I don't know where to start w/ this. First, we can't let Rummy get away w/ blatant theft. Whatever happened to that money? I have yet to find a follow-up story.

I read somewhere that the airplane numbers are still in service, yet just couldn't find a link to anything of the sort.

Should those of been RC craft, they're destroyed, and maybe were devoid of people. To say, "we'll never know" is a cop-out and at least the S11 truthers are doing what they do.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peyres
the wing damage spanned the whole of the buildings width, this maximised the damage to the building.


I thought i already explained this. The second plane when in at an angle through the side of the South tower causing less damage then the plane at the North tower.

Please look at the videos, photos and read the reports before posting about the second planes wing causing maximum damage.



[edit on 18-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Peyres
 


Who do you suggest committed the Anthrax Attacks or lets even say the OK Bombing. It would not at all be out of the scope of possibility that 911 could have been committed/orchestrated by Americans.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


A cop out? Let me rephrase then. I am doubtful we will know absolute truth until all people involved, if a conspiracy did take place, are dead. I fully agree there is an accountability issue in our country. Do you realize how hard it would be to convict a VP of disreputable acts...and not have a pardon take place. I think it would be haneous if the conspiracy is true, but doubtful justice would take place.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


yes...and rummy with the money is unacceptable...it was our borrowed money. there goes that accountability thing again.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join