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.

 

The end of 'Terrorist Couldn't Fly Planes That Well' threads

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


Back on the second page someone posted a link to some of the data from the flight recorders that stated the FMS was used to line up with the target, and that it was switched off at the last couple of min.


Hi dbates-

I posted a thread about a scenario utilizing the FMS, but i've received zero response to it so I'd like to bring it up here also. In a nutshell I wanted expert input whether or not the FMS & other cockpit instrumentation could be remotely manipulated via digitally encrypted RF signals.

Could an FMS, transponder, and other cockpit instrumentation be built to accept instructions from a digitally encrypted RF, yet look & respond normally to the pilots data entry, and then reprogrammed from a remote location?

This may answer a few questions, ( like how the cockpit were taken, etc. ), and produce a scenario like this;



07:59- AA Flight 11 takes off as planned and the FMS is programmed by the pilots.

08:13- A routine acknowledgement to make a 20 degree turn to the right is the last communication received from the crew of AA 11 as it passes 26,000 feet.

08:14- AA 11 ignores an air traffic controller's order to climb to 35,000 feet because communications have been disabled from a remote location. The transponder has also been locked remotely so no distress code can be entered, and continues to transmit it’s mode-C signal as usual. Unknown to the pilots the only command it will respond to is to be shut off. The FMS is also contacted remotely and instructed to level off at 29,00 feet. The hijackers, priviledged to the exact time into the flight this will all take place, storm the cockpit & kill the pilots.

08:16- AA 11 levels off at 29,00 feet. The hijackers proceed to removed the dead pilots from the cockpit.

08:21- Mohammed Atta turns off the transponder, disabling the major mechanism for tracking the flight. Air traffic controller tells his supervisor something is wrong. This is also a signal to the remote location that the plane has been successfully taken by the hijackers, and new data is fed into the FMS. Communications have also been restored.

08:23- AA 11 changes course.

08:24- Mohammed Atta engages the intercom to talk to the passengers, but he has been deceived. He is actually broadcasting back to Boston ATC. This is done so there will be no mistake that the plane has indeed been hijacked to complete the cover story. He broadcasts the message, “We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be O.K.. We are returning to the airport. “

*** snip ***

08:46- Atta takes over control of the plane from the autopilot to make one final maneuver and align with the target. AA11 slams into WTC 1.


What do you think about this scenario? Is it possible that this could be done from an AWACS platform, etc.? Thanx-

2PacSade-


[edit on 30-11-2007 by 2PacSade]




posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


I asked my expert at Flight Safety about how the flight plans were uploaded and his reponse was..



On the G150...they removed the floppy drive & put a standard USB port for the crew to use....they also use Airinc to send the wx or emails or flight plans to the aircraft



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   
the fact of the matter is.. flying a plane is easy.. the hard part
is landing...
ive taken a few private lessons and its almost as easy as driving a
car...
that being said.. all they would have to do is punch in the GPS for
the general area they want to be in... then aim...

we pay pilots to land.. they will tell you themselves that between
takeoff and landing.. the GPS flies the plane..



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Originally posted by 2PacSade



What do you think about this scenario? Is it possible that this could be done from an AWACS platform, etc.? Thanx-


Pretty far fetched but not impossible.

My opinion is that command and control of 911 was from an E4-B or similar airplane.

From this command center they broadcasted phony messages from the hijacked planes, created phoney transponder codes and inserted CGI's into news broadcast.

I believe the holographic projector was in the E4-B also.

I also think that the explosives which simulated the alleged plane crashes into the World Trade Center were remotely triggered from the same E4-B and that the controls for the DEW satellite were operated from there also.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Originally posted by KATSUO





the fact of the matter is.. flying a plane is easy.. the hard part
is landing...
ive taken a few private lessons and its almost as easy as driving a
car...
that being said.. all they would have to do is punch in the GPS for
the general area they want to be in... then aim...

we pay pilots to land.. they will tell you themselves that between
takeoff and landing.. the GPS flies the plane..


I disagree with your statement Katsuo. I have 19,000 hours and 40 years experience and I doubt if I could have hit the WTC at 500 mph the first pass.

But I will take your name and put you down as a possible pilot for my experiment. I am going to rent a Boeing 767 simulator and put persons like yourself in the left seat, going 500 mph at 800 feet 20 miles out from the WTC. I'll be video taping both you and the WTC while you show me how easy it is to hit the WTC with a Boeing 767 going 500 mph while maintaining 800 feet above the ground.

You only get one try and you have to hit it dead center.

We should have a lot of fun.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 

Hey, I'm really looking forward to this. Do you plan on having a range of skill levels in this test? It would be nice to see a professional pilot, a hobby pilot, and someone with only flight sim or no experience try and hit this.

According to the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD the planes didn't fly at 800 feet for 20 miles. See page 13 of this report.

www.ntsb.gov...


[edit on 30-11-2007 by dbates]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 



There are a few problems with your scenario right off the bat: Betty Ong and the other stew that was up front ( see transcripts I posted above in another post ) had NO IDEA about any highjackings!! Read the words. All the crew were perplexed because they could not get the cockpit to respond and could not enter it. No one saw any assault on the cockpit. No one reported ANY pilots or pilot bodies. They are neever mentioned. Find that odd? I do. If acording to your scenario, the ' highjackers ' knew the exact time to burst in and kill the pilots and drag them from the cockpits ( FOUR TIMES ) they must have done it without breaching the cockpits or removing the pilots..and they must have done it all INSTANTLY since not ONE pilot managed to press the mike button ON THE CONTROL YOKE right next to his finger..and alert the ATC !! Imagine that!!

I agree that the planes were taken remotely, that much is certain. There is no other way to reconcile all of the ' anomalies ' associated with these events. But I do NOT believe that the highjackers were believing they were on a suicide mission..no way. What were there ONLY PURPORTED words? " We are going to land "..right? Maybe they actually believed that they were taking part in the Games as well and would live. Either that or they had a lot of explaining to do to Allah about the pork and lap dances ands coc aine binges before the mission !!

The ' highjackers ' were patsies, fall guys, just like all of the black bag Rayethon guys that bit the bullet that day. Remember, the stews on Flight 11 ( Betty says 12 at first and later corrects herself; could Flight 12 have been the designation of the ' training ' flight? remember that this flight was NOT scheduled that day at all!!) never heard any coomotion..never reported any highjacking..they had to guess at that..and their main complain at first was that the cockpit would not answer. HOW did the highjackers silently enter the cockpits? And, overcome all eight pilots? And find room for their bodies in a cramped cockpit? No one reported ANY pilots laying dead anywhere, the front stew who was feeding Betty her info merely repeats what SHE is being told!!

She never says she is seeing it firsthand..ALL INFO is coming from the very front of the plane and being relayed back..and could well have been all part of the script. TWO flight attendants manage to call the airline: BOTH of them report being puzzled at not being able to contact the cockpit. NONE of them discuss any kind of ' Boeing Key ' that some posters have alleged exists and can be taken from a stew and usewd to enter the cockpit. Funny they never mentioned them or tried to use one on the planes..huh? Just frustration and fright ( with no emotion in the voices ) about the cockpit being unable to respond.

There is NO background noise that would indicate passengers being in a heightened state of fear or alarm. No noise of screaming or yelling: If the Purser was ' stabbed ' and the ' #5 ' also was ' stabbed ', why is there no lamenting and crying and yelling? If there were any ' highjackers ' in the rear of the plane there would be no phone calls or passengers talking back and forth..But it seems that in the rear of the plane the passengers and crew were all alone..AND able to get info relayed from up front, according to the lady in the first class area and business are afeeding Betty the info.

So there was little or no supervision of the passengers at all: The attention is ALL on the COCKPIT, where suddenly and without seing any assault, the crew finds that the cockpit is not answering. That is their first concern. The part about stabbings and breathing and mace allegations are all just rumors sent from the front to the back..info being passed along to the rear of the plane to establish a story for the perps to later point to. But they do not want detailed examination of this as it stands out like a sore thumb: NONE of the tapes and transcripts make any sense if the official story is to be believed. Tnere is NO WAY that in all four cases the ' highjackers ' could possibly take over the cockpits so fast that the pilots would be rendered instantly disabled..then where to put them?

NO bodies mentioned as being SEEN..only alluded to. the stew up front says that one of the highjackers ' showed her a bomb, with wires'. If you believe that was real and not a part of the games, you have my sympathy. There was no bomb, and there was no gas..the Games just turned out very different than the patsies imagined, they got double crossed. The plan was smart tho: Use the Games as a way to fill in the gaps and establish in the minds of the public certain allegations..ones that need never be proven or verified..just mentioned..that seem to show the governments story is possible. The GAMES were a major and necessary part of this whole thing..the key part, without them it could not have been done.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   
:-D
im in john..
but I want 2 tries.. the first to hit the WTC
then the second ill hit full flaps, full trim, and reverse thrust, ill land that fat pig right onthe roof.. :-D



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
But I will take your name and put you down as a possible pilot for my experiment. I am going to rent a Boeing 767 simulator and put persons like yourself in the left seat, going 500 mph at 800 feet 20 miles out from the WTC. I'll be video taping both you and the WTC while you show me how easy it is to hit the WTC with a Boeing 767 going 500 mph while maintaining 800 feet above the ground.

You only get one try and you have to hit it dead center.

John, there's one problem with this... you will be out of pocket, with the ability to say "I told you so", while they walk away without financial loss.

Maybe, you should include an extra clause: If they can't do it, then THEY have to pay for the time that they spent in the simulator, not you. That way, you won't be out of pocket AND you will have the ability to say "I told you so".

If they can hit the towers, then you pay for their time while they get to say "I told you so". If they can't hit the towers, then they can pay for the opportunity to try and prove you wrong.

At least that way, John, you're not paying out too much money to prove them wrong, they'll be doing it all on their own. You will just be booking the time in the simulator for them to use.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
hes a smart guy, im sure he can figure out how to make it
a write off..



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by dbates



Hey, I'm really looking forward to this. Do you plan on having a range of skill levels in this test? It would be nice to see a professional pilot, a hobby pilot, and someone with only flight sim or no experience try and hit this.


Yes, we have a range of skills, from fully qualified and current to those who have never flown or programmed an FMS but who insist its really easy to crash into the World Trade Center at 500 mph. Probably 6 pilots.

The profile will be the same altitude the alleged hijackers were at, same heading, same speed.

I will probably establish a board of 5 or 6 people who will meet to establish the rules so after it is all said and done nobody can say, "Well that wan't very realistic."

The proposal to have the pilots pay if they fail is an interesting one, but I don't want anybody to feel handicapped with an extra burden.

I want to be completely fair about this. I have 19,000 hours of flight time and I don't think I could do it.

I just want to be able to give them the controls and say, "Show me. Show me how easy it is."

Because I don't think many people realize what's involved here. The Boeing 767 is a very large airplane. You are flying it at 500 mph which is approximately 100 mph faster than it is designed to fly at. Its going to be noisy, and the stick forces are going to be incredibly high. (Stick forces are the pounds it takes to move the controls which increase with speed.)

At 500 mph a one degree change in pitch is going to give you several thousands of feet per minute rate of climb.

If I can prove the 'clacker' didn't have a circuit breaker in 2001 (which would disable the clacker) the pilot is going to have to fly with the 'clacker' on over Vmo which is about 360 knots indicated.

The 'clacker' is a warning that comes on in the cockpit when you exceed Vmo. The volume, rate, pitch and frequency of the 'clacker' is specifically designed to be disorienting so the pilot will take immediate action to slow the airplane.

But even without the 'clacker', 500 mph? at 800 ft.? Hit a 208 foot wide building with a Boeing 767? No way.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The proposal to have the pilots pay if they fail is an interesting one, but I don't want anybody to feel handicapped with an extra burden.

You're far too kind and generous, John. Maybe you struck a fresh vein of Au that we don't know about???

I would insist on them not only eating their words but having them pay for the opportunity to do so!

Aiming to hit a slim 65 metre-ish wide target, dead-centre, travelling at 800 km/hour is not something that I think would be easy to achieve on the first attempt.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I should be in Vegas the weekend of March 14, 2008. (remind me to get Bette Midler tickets...)

Hey, who has a 767 sim in LAS?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
john.. last night after thinking about this ALOT..
I fired up FS'04 and I play at 4x 8x sim rate (more realistic)
took off from Kennedy Int. and headed for the City..

since the buildings arent in 04 I aimed at the Empire instead.
empire state building could be picked out of the skyline
just as easy as the WTCs could..

2 things became glaringly obvious.. it would be hard to hit
the building at that speed.. and to an inexperienced pilot it
would be tough to aim for anything while tryin to see over
the instrument panel.. easy fix would have been to fly low,
so you can have a slightly better view.... then have one of
your buddies stand up and be a second set of eyes.

and the hard bank right before impact tells me that he was
inexperienced because it looks like an over-correction..
he dammed near missed the building... if it were a highly
skilled pilot he would have leveled off and set up the collision
just like if he was landing.. not coming in a an angle so that
you have to swing it in at the last second almost missing the
target.

so... I see where you get the idea that it would be VERY
difficult to do.. but not outside the realm of possibility.
I do not think it was RC'ed by a skilled pilot...
if it were they would find the best qualified individual they
could get onto the payroll..

I have more to say, but I dont want to bore you with my
ramblings. :-D



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
theres more information on boeings in this thread than all of the 911 reports, and we spent millions on them.

all conspiracies aside, that is mismanagement to the criminal level.

911 needs to be resolved conspiracy or not. Its obvious to anyone who wants to see the truth that there is either negligence or conspiracy. the negligence is indeed far beyond your average criminal negligence and should be addressed by the people.

think about it: polls show clearly that we (americans) want health care and dont want war, but have war and not health care. they said prior to the war we didnt have the money for health care, but the war has proven this to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt.

obviously our representation has been comprimised.

if you cant see this i feel sorry for you.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

There are a few problems with your scenario right off the bat: Betty Ong and the other stew that was up front ( see transcripts I posted above in another post ) had NO IDEA about any highjackings!! Read the words.


thats odd, on the recording of her voice she says the plane was hijacked.

either the recording is false or she knew.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by KATSUO
john.. last night after thinking about this ALOT..
I fired up FS'04 and I play at 4x 8x sim rate (more realistic)
took off from Kennedy Int. and headed for the City..


yes I done the same, I can make approaches, use autopilot and land all the simulated Boeing 7x7 types in fs2004 and came to more or less the same conclusion as yourself. The WTC isn't much wider than a runway anyhow, and overspeeding and banking more or less in one direction the whole time and dive bombing... hmmm



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Insolubrious, While I do not have an FS program from the wealthy Mr. Gates, et al, I understand what you meant in your post. What's compelling to ponder is, a desktop computer platform for what is essentially a 'game' program is several magitudes of order less sophisticated than the computing power necessary to operate a Full-Flight airplane simulator. As pointed out earlier, the state-of-the-art today is so good, you can train in an approved syllabus that will take you all the way to a type rating in the airplane without ever flying the real thing. Of course, there still has to be supervised 'Initial Operating Experience' per various companie's certification standards...

Regarding the 'challenge'...if a B767 simulator is used for the experiment it should have a 'daylight' feature on the visuals, just because night flying is different from daytime.

OH, and Insolubrious, you didn't say whether your FS '04 program included a full control wheel, or a joystick, or if you just used the arrow keys! Of course, in any event, those interfaces would not re-create the control forces that are simulated in a $25M device to train airline pilots, so there's a twist that may catch some unawares...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

There are a few problems with your scenario right off the bat: Betty Ong and the other stew that was up front ( see transcripts I posted above in another post ) had NO IDEA about any highjackings!! Read the words.


thats odd, on the recording of her voice she says the plane was hijacked.

either the recording is false or she knew.


Betty and the others did NOT know about a highjacking for a while..and had to gues. She said " I GUESS we are being highjacked ", because of the CLUES that were being relayed from the stew up front. Since NO ONE reported actually SEEINg anyone assault and occupy the cockpits and eject the pilots one way or another, they were first worried that they simply could get no response from the cockpits..read the words and it is clear. It is as if the highjackers melded thru the doors and into the cockpits and the pilots seemingly disappeared, because no reference was made of them by Betty or the other girl and no pilot bodies were reported as well.

There are NO first hand accounts of anyone seeing anything..with the sole exception of the front stew ' allegedly ' claiming to have been ' shown ' a bobm type device with wires and all!! No verification for that has ever been proffered. All claims of box cutters, guns, bombs, mace, etc, are totally and wholly unsupported by any evidence..they are all rumors or allegations, and the voices of all concerned could have easily been morphed and / or included with genuine speech read from a script or prompted by someone else.

Remember the call from Flt. 93 where the guy was giving him Mom his last name ? Well, he also kept repeating over and over: " You believe me, don't you Mom ". He also kept turning away from the phone and talking to someone else..and after talking to this person , he would again ask " you believe me.."..The whole conversation was highly suspicious. I think that the passengers were asked to play roles for the GAMES and to try and make it as authentic as possible. They were no doubt told that their loved ones would be contacted right away after the Games to assure them that all was well. I can just imagine the tales told to get the results we see and hear from that day.

The GAMES were key..integral, necessary, a major and critical part of both the deceptions and the attacks as well. I agree with John Lear about the controllers being in an E-4.the Big White Plane seen circling DC and elsewhere that day. I believe it. Recall the ' warning ' that Bush got about ' ANGEL IS NEXT "..? That was a warning I believe from the Generals and intel guys in that plane, WHO POSSESSED THE NUCLEAR CODES AND COULD LAUNCH WITHOUT BUSH'S APPROVAL FROM THAT PLATFORM, not to interfere with what was happening. It was a direct threat to Bush, either sincere or as part of the effort to distance Bush from the shadow Gov. Neocon perps..to take him out of he did not play along.

Bush headed to Offut AFB, where WHO was waiting? Warren Buffet and a few other billionaires no doubt ready to explain the facts of life to George if he got antsy and started to break down fearing for his own neck in all this. Also, just consider the FACT that not ONE likley and possible explanation has ever been given for the manner in which the Towers and the surrounding buildings turned to dust or otherwise imploded/exploded/dustified given the energy sources known to have been present. There is NO energy source great enough to cause the effects seen on the Towers..except for those DEW machines. What else could it be? We KNOW gravity is out..we know that fire is out. WHAT causes thousands of tons of concrete to turn to a dust as fine as flour?

We see the Towers being pulverized from the top down, after the top sections above the strike zones suddenly lose their ability to hold up the tops, uniformly and at the same moment. the all turns to dust. The huge top sections, that one would expect to see standing atop a huge rubble pile given the story..but yet all we see is dust. the top sectrions turned to dust on the way down!!Some energy force was pulverizing right in front of us!! It turned the steel core, massive steel..to dust also!! Anything strike you as odd about that? Not to the NIST !! They just ignore it. So do some people here..but ignoring is not learning, and we should all be learning as much about this event as possible: At the end of the trail lies an answer so shocking that the world will be rocked when it is opened up.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

 


OH, and Insolubrious, you didn't say whether your FS '04 program included a full control wheel, or a joystick, or if you just used the arrow keys! Of course, in any event, those interfaces would not re-create the control forces that are simulated in a $25M device to train airline pilots, so there's a twist that may catch some unawares...


im not 100% sure (never actually flew a $25M aircraft.. but with
"fly by wire" you dont get any sensory input from the yoke.
thats why alot of the "old time" pilots hate the new aircraft
because you cant feel the plane..



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join