It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How Were the Cockpits Taken ? Examining the Logistics

page: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:51 PM
By the way, here is a great site that proves once and for all that remote flights WERE happening, and regularly:

From that site: " The bottom line.
It is technically possible to create a system to perform remotely commanded return flights of a hijacked airliner. Onboard digital command, control and display equipment can easily share data with, and accept commands from, ground control stations. Little input beyond the initial command to enter safe return flight and the ultimate destination are needed.

Costs of retrofitting the existing airline fleet? Estimates range from $10 billion to more than $300 billion spent over a period of ten years.

The most pragmatic approach? Design and install such systems into aircraft currently under development, and, on current production aircraft, design and install electronic interfaces and overrides."

And that was years ago!! And we KNOW that the military/intelligence guys have more advanced stuff than they let the public know about, so remote flying is totally common.

The Air Force has for many years used remote drones to blow up for practice...the next step is the fair minded observer that is.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by richierich

you have no idea what you are talking about. IF you will read the following links, you will see that ALL the necessary systems were in place via software to take over the planes in question.

Actually, I do know. I'm afraid, unless you also have several type ratings in large transport-category jets, and over two decades' worth of experience flying them, then I know a great deal more than you, sorry.

I won't dissect your rather long post....just will note that many of the links in it come from 9/11 "conspiracy" sites, that simply repeat the same misunderstanding, concerning this technology, and make the FALSE claim as to how "easy" it would be to implement.

What the learned articles were discussing, though, was a possibility at some time in future, should it be deemed 'necessary', such efforts could be undertaken.

You saw the $ figures, right?? It is a idea, a notion. NONE of the Boeings (nor Airbuses) come out of the factory equipped and ready for some sort of "plug in remote control" system!

There are a great deal more hurdles, too...things you'd know about, IF you were a pilot.

Some sort of air-to-ground uplink circuitry...PLUS the OTHER devices, not yet invented, to integrate into existing systems.

THEN the physical....gear and flap/slats have to be commanded to selected positions. That is done, today, by physically moving handles. There is NO provision, currently, for devising a way to actuate them electronically.

ALSO, the A/P is limited, in control authority. It is designed to be 'smooth'.

A human can manipulate the controls muchmore quickly, even overstress the airplane (in Boeings...Airbus employ software in the FCCs to prevent that).

In any event, pilots will laugh at the idea of being UNABLE to control the airplane!! An A/P is easily overpowered, and defeated, as I mentioned
many times...either this thread, or another..and months ago, too.

Because, if there's no electrical power, then the darn things won't function!

Airplanes will fly, engines will run...with normal electrics disabled.

REAL pilots wouldn't sit there and do nothing, because they understand the systems too well.

These concepts being discussed are taken out of context by true "conspiracy believers", and 9/11 deniers. The ideas here of a possible way to access the airplanes remotely isn;t to TAKE OVER, but to have an alternative in the unlikely event of a dual pilot incapacitation.

[edit on 25 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:54 PM
Of COURSe you will not, and cannot, take apaprt my post, because what I said is true and you cannot refute it. you cannot even begin to try and explain HOW the four planes were taken given all the evidence available.

Electrical systems? if the remote controller can override the entire system and leave the pilots staring out the window wondering what is happening...and I am not saying that is necesarily the case..then the electrical systems are unaffected.

The pilots lose the ability to control the planes, and their radios do not work.What could the pilots do? Get coffee? All they could do is try and explain to the crew what was happening and hope for the best.

I am not convinced that any of the scheduled( or in one case Un scheduled) planes were crashed at all. Sure, two planes hit the Towers...but NO plane hit the Pentagon and NO plane hit the ground at Shanksville...thats for two of the planes are already missing.

Then we see planes hit the Towers that many said were not like the airliners claimed in the official story; it is totally possible that similar looking planes were prerigged for remote and empty except for explosives, and the real jetliners either put back into service quietly ( as claimed by several people ) or ditched at sea with the passengers rounded up at a central point.

there are several possibilities; but there are also profound TRUTHS...and one of these is as follows:

No one, from the government or otherwise, has adequately explained how all four jets were taken in the time given and under the circumstances proven as fact.

Unless you can do that, your contributions have so far been less than inspiring. Try harder, I know you can do it.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:40 PM
Do you seriously expect me to believe that when current pilots using computer-assisted landing programmes still manage to under and overshoot runways while sitting in the cockpit that three DECADES ago they invented a remote system that could safely land an aircraft ANYWHERE in the US?

Oh, and don't try quoting Global Hawks and Predators at me. There is a gulf of difference between the physics of a single-engined drone that could practically be lifted by a single person and multi-engined jet.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:23 PM
I am asking you to believe the evidence. The evidence is that such systems are common and used for a while. Did any of you determined official story faithful actually go to the links I posted and read the material? i Know looking at the proof can be a drag, but if you want to get to the truth, you really have to examine it.

There is massive evidence that remote systems were developed for commercial and military purposes, and have been demonstrated many times. Flying a drone of any type is the exact same thing as fluing any other craft; A qualified pilot sits at a console, with screens and controls, and fly the plane remotely using the cameras mounted on and in the aircraft and by observing the instruments. Simple. No biggie.

Why would is be suprising? What OTHER scenario explains the instantaneous takeovers of all 4 aircraft with perfect precision and no chance for any of eight (8) pilots to so much as lift a finger and radio a call. I notice that you do not seem to want to address this...just like the government. you cannot come up with any likely and plausible way it could have been done, so you just ignore it all...amazing.

C'mon, lets hear it...give us all a likely scenario in which 2 small arabs men on each airliner manage to: Penetrate the cockpits....kill or disable both pilots before even ONE could send a radio call...drag their corpses from the cockpit...assume the controls and perfom flying feats virtually impossible for even seasoned pilots, despite not being capable of renting a Cessna...tell us all what magic they used....super karate? SURELY you can convince a fair minded person that YOUR version makes more sense...CORRECT??

We will see, won't we?

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:26 AM

Originally posted by richierich 2 small arabs men

I notice you guys always make great play of the hijackers' ethnicity. Why is it so important? It's almost as if you're usiong it in the same sense as "cave dweller" - as a calculated slight, designed to make them seem less powerful.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:35 AM
Another is the fact that one the cockpit doors were never polled as being opened during the flight. If thats true then how did the hijackers get into the cockpit. AND, if it isn't then the recordings/data is either wrong or corrupted.

Waiting on Weedwhacker.......

[edit on 5/26/2010 by mikelee]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by mikelee should know better than this:

Another is the fact that one the cockpit doors were never polled as being opened during the flight.

You have re-hashed an earlier (and totally incorrect, fallacious) claim.

This is uncalled for, coming from you. YOU are supposed to be a 'better researcher', no?

NOW....your attempt at damage has been done, and I know there are going to be people reading this who have not heard, yet about it...., here's the nutshell version: An incorrect reading of an aspect of ONE DFDR (the one from American Airlines flight 77) got a certain "9/11 truth" website all in a tizzy, thinking they'd found the proverbial "smoking gun" evidence....well, it was smoking alright --- after they'd shot themselves in the feet...SEVERAL times. Even after the egg-pasting on their faces, they STILL have the bogus "discovery" plastered all over their website....totally inept, or deceptive? You be the judge....

ANYWAY....a DFDR, as installed, has many unused parameters available, it is a choice by the customer for certain optional items to be monitored. In AAL's case, they did NOT monitor the cockpit entry door status. The DFDR did have the ablity, but IT WAS NOT HOOKED UP!!! It was not important, it was not vital, it was not an FAA requirement.

SO, by default, the particular "on/off" segment in the memory was stuck in one position --- a position that (IF it had been actively linked to the door's latch) would normally be a "closed" indication, for the door. It was a default setting, nothing else. Here, I'll come back with an edit to the ATS thread on it....


Here it is:

[edit on 26 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:17 AM

The planes were remotely flown into their targets.

This is well known.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by Shadow Herder


That is about the only appropriate resonse to THAT nonsense!

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

The planes were remotely flown into their targets.

This is well known.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]


Is that Italian for " your right " ?

The dependence of the U.S. government and military on computer systems, which run on software provided by outside vendors, is the Achilles' heel of the world's most powerful nation. 9-11 was clear proof of that fundamental weakness and vulnerability.

9-11 was a computer crime. Apart from being a monstrous crime of mass murder and false flag terrorism, 9-11 was also a sophisticated computer crime, carried out through long-term foreign infiltration of the most sensitive U.S. military and government computer networks.

This infiltration, carried out by a foreign intelligence agency, gave the perpetrators of 9-11 "real-time" access to all the data on the computers of the U.S. government and military. On 9-11, this "super-user" access to the data of the most critical government computer networks gave the terrorists the ability to thwart the military response to the emergency as it developed.

Most importantly, the terrorists who committed 9-11 through their "super-user" access to the most critical computer networks of the U.S. government still have that access. The evidence indicates that this infiltration was carried out by the military intelligence agency of the State of Israel.

PTECH & 9-11

The subject of computer sabotage in relation to the aerial attacks of 9-11 was brought to the fore by Indira Singh, who spoke at early 9-11 truth events organized by Kyle Hence.

During these early 9-11 "truth" events, a small Massachusetts-based software company called Ptech was brought up by Singh, who sought to link it to Arab terrorists.

Ptech was said to be a start-up company from Quincy, Mass. whose software was loaded onto the most sensitive computer systems across the U.S. government, including those of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the U.S. Air Force, two agencies whose systems failed miserably on 9-11.

Singh, a senior consultant with JP Morgan Chase on 9-11, is described as a "whistle-blower" because of her revelations about Ptech's involvement with the critical computer systems that failed on 9-11.

"Ptech was with MITRE Corporation in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11," Singh said. "Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA -- that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything -- it would have been Ptech along with MITRE."

Please read more here

Here is a youtube video from fox news. A great story on how Israel was involved in 9/11.

Here is a video of Israelis that ADMITTED that there were hired to Document 9.11.

Lots of Israeli Links to 9.11.

This person Daniel Lewin who was not only Israeli but he was the first alledgedly "Shot/Stabbed" on FLIGHT 11 that crashed into WTC 1. He was part of the World's most ELITE anti-Hijacking team and multi-billionaire owner of AKAMAI.

Daniel M. Lewin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Daniel "Danny" Mark Lewin (Hebrew: דניאל (דני) מארק לוין; May 14, 1970 – September 11, 2001) was a mathematician and entrepreneur, best known for co-founding internet company Akamai Technologies.

Lewin was born in Denver, Colorado and raised in Jerusalem, where he served for four years in the Israel Defence Forces. He was an officer in Sayeret Matkal, an elite and secretive intelligence unit.

He attended the Technion university in Haifa, Israel while simultaneously working at IBM's research laboratory in Haifa. While at IBM, he was responsible for developing the Genesys system, a processor verification tool that is used widely within IBM and in other companies such as AMD and SGS Thompson.

"Our purpose was to document the event"

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:52 PM
The penultimate video you link to is so ridiculous.

It suggests Mossad had the necessary influence to completely remove their agents from the US news cycle and then fly them back to Israel on the quiet. But once they get there they can't even keep them from confessing live on TV? Come on.

Setting aside even that, surely an unbiased viewer would immediately be a little bit suspicious of a video that is so heavily edited. It's almost as if snatched of the conversation are being used out of context. And what about the translation? It's not a big stretch from "We were there to document the event" (snip, in case he says something that doesn't incriminate him) to "We were filming the events at the WTC, (snip) but to suggest that we are members of Mossad is ridiculous."

Even the way he says "we were accused of being in Mossad" (I paraphrase) is put across as though he thinks such a notion is ridiculous.

All in all you have to really want there to be a Jewish conspiracy to think this snippet has any merit. And there's a word for people like that.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:52 PM
when i flew to washington dc in 2000 you could walk up to the pilots door and talk to them, i have no idea what some of you are talking about doors. The flight attendants even asked my friends if they wanted to go up and meet the pilots.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:23 AM
The pilots were not totally defenseless. Do a net search and you will see that more than a few hijackers got there heads smahed by a cockpit fire ax over the years. Box cutter faces fire ax? I bet on the ax.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:31 AM
There is NO WAY pilots would meekly walk away and hand over the way. The official story sucks, and the cheney gang knows it....hence no attempt at explaining HOW it happened. No details.

This is a smoking gun subject, and the perps know it.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:35 AM
reply to post by fixer1967

Oh, really??

Do a net search and you will see that more than a few hijackers got there heads smahed by a cockpit fire ax over the years.

Since I'm in the business, am fairly familiar with most stories, and haven't heard this. Care to make the links for us?

BTW, on contrary, the PILOTS have been atacked by intruders....there is THIS incident:

AND, also another that comes to mind: DO have an idea just where the Crash Axe is stored, correct? Because you seem to think it is right to hand, when the pilots (well, the First officer) are seated.....

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:39 AM
reply to post by richierich

For once, you are correct....

There is NO WAY pilots would meekly walk away and hand over the way.

BUT, who says that happened?? YOU??

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:11 PM
40 years ago 4 planes were hi-jacked by arabs on the same day :-

No remote control was involved. Why is it so difficult to imagine something similar on 9/11 ?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by Alfie1

Very good point, Alfie. ( Can't wait to see how 'they' spin and backpedal on this!

Just so this story/incident doesn't get lost in the static noise, more on it:'s_Field_hijackings

Darn it!!! ATS doesn't seem to like links that have the "_" in them....!

You'll have to copy/paste I guess.....

[edit on 27 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by fixer1967

Oh, really??

Do a net search and you will see that more than a few hijackers got there heads smahed by a cockpit fire ax over the years.

Since I'm in the business, am fairly familiar with most stories, and haven't heard this. Care to make the links for us?

BTW, on contrary, the PILOTS have been atacked by intruders....there is THIS incident:

AND, also another that comes to mind: DO have an idea just where the Crash Axe is stored, correct? Because you seem to think it is right to hand, when the pilots (well, the First officer) are seated.....

I am just going by what I have read. If I am wrong then I am wrong.

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in