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.

 

How did the terrorists know where to fly?

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pro420
The official story was that the terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into there destination. Now what im about to say might already have been said on ATS or not. This is my view. The official story doesn't make since to me. How did the terrorists know where to fly??? It's impossible to fly to a destination without help from a control center (you know what i mean). So how the hell did the terrorists know where to fly?? the government never says that they were contacted by the terrorists asking them directions or saying that they hijacked the planes. Im sure the terrorists never did contact the control center so that being said how did they know where to fly???????????????????????????????????
 

Mod Edit: All caps removed. Please see The use of All Caps. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 31/3/08 by JAK]


First off my friend... I must inform you that it is NOT impossible to fly to a destination without a help from a control tower or center. IN FACT MOST flights are non controlled flights. These are usually small aircraft used for personal pleasure or possibly light business. There are VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Both have limits on cloud distance and visibility. ALL IFR flights ARE controlled by ATC (air traffic control).

Many flights are completed with VFR using a pilot's term called "dead-reckoning". Dead reckoning is the use of navigational beacons, aviation navigation charts, visual landmarks, etc. These flights are really no different then a trip in your car. You plan a route and use a map.

I personally do not believe the government story of 911. But I must say that if a terrorist knew his target in advanced, and using public knowledge, air navigation charts and the internet... one could chart a course to anywhere WITHOUT the use of ATC.

On another note... the popular video game simulation Microsoft Flight Simulator 1998 and 2000 both had accurate 3d models of Washington DC and New York city including 3D models of landmark buildings like the WTC, pentagon, and White House. This game and ones like it could have been used to train for navigation and landmark reference.

I remember playing Microsoft Flight Sim in the pre-911 world and actually flying a Boeing 737 commercial airliner BETWEEN the World Trade towers while executing a barrel roll to impress my friends. I did it many times; sometimes I would fail in the maneuver and crash into the towers.

I never thought it would really happen.




posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


[deleted]

[edit on 4/3/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AllSeeingI
 


Hey AllSeeing!!

Just a few minor details about 'dead-reckoning'. It is really a misnomer, short for 'deduced' reckoning...(ded-reckoning)...but when accurate, is 'dead on'...

Following landmarks, especially as referenced by the Sectional Carts, is called 'pilotage'.

Back to 'ded-reckoning'...in its purest form, it is the art of holding a heading and speed, and using a timer to calculate your track and position, with the estimated (known) winds aloft at your altitude....

(think of Charles Lindburgh) He was darned lucky to have pretty good weather for the whole flight, over the water. Of course, hold the heading and you'll eventually reach land (Europe).

Back in the day, we used to joke about it if the INS crapped out, from Hawai'i to the Mainland...just follow the headings on the computer flight plan, and eventually we'll see the West Coast!! Yeah, it was said in jest, and one wouldn't want it to happen, but IF it did, we would tell ATC on the HF, and fly off-altitude in case we drifted off the airway, to lessen the chances of collisions...this was before GPS and TCAS and all the neato technology we have now.

Funny story, at my airline...this actually happened YEARS ago, so don't worry...but a crew from SYD to HNL messed up the INS initialization...someone put North Latitude in by mistake. Anyway, rather than taking the minor 10-minute delay needed to re-initialize, (the smart thing to do) they took off anyway, since they were so familiar with the route, and used the flight plan to 'ded-reckon' their way to Hawai'i. 'Course, they had contrails of other jets to help them...all in all, really stupid move, and they got found out. The Captain was nicknamed 'Magellan' after that!! (Yes, he got his job back, but retired shortly after). There are many anecdotes of this nature, but that was years ago, today there is quite a different mindset....'rules is rules'...and my favorite, hey we get paid by the minute, so what's your hurry!

WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
As it has been said before, even if they turn off the black boxes and such there is still radar that can track the planes above cities. Let us not forget NORAD either, they track everything over the U.S. sky's black boxes or not. If they can watch unidentified flying objects in the sky, which do not have black boxes, then the planes postions were always known.

It has been said that a military exercise was being conducted at the time, but let me say this, no one in the military would divert our primary defenses just to run a mock up, they must always have their eyes open and doing their jobs to protect the nation.

And let us not forget that the technology has existed for a long time regarding flying planes by remote control.

Yeah, we could go on about everything that does not add up regarding the 911 situation. The bottom line is, things are taking place in the U.S. and the main media is not doing the job. But then, they are not allowed to, so what does that really say?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
First of all 767's and 757's are very easy to fly once they are airborne. If you can fly a Cessna 172 you can fly an "airborne" 767. 2.) on the NAV screens it shows alternate airports for emergency's, etc. You would simply zoom out the NAV screen and follow it to either LaGuardia or Kennedy's waypoints, very simple. And probably they didn't even need to do that, since the weather was extremely clear and the air was dry, at 30K feet you can see for 220 miles give or take a few. Or another option was that they had handheld GPS units with the waypoints already programmed in, very possible I use them in the air all the time. This should not even be an issue here, it would be very simple to do!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jonar
 


Yes Jonar, things going on behind the scenes....who knows?

Let's keep our terminology straight, though. 'black boxes' weren't turned off...transponders were. Each airplane on an IFR flight plan is assigned a discrete four digit code, consisting of numbers from 0-7 only. "0000" is never assigned, '1200' is squawked by VFR airplanes, and '7500', '7600' and '7700' are reserved for other purposes, as is '1400'.

Anyway, the transponder code is used by ATC computers to keep track of the flight, to provide the 'data block' on the screen the controller sees. Since there are only a limited number of code combinations (4096) and there are so many flights nowadays, sometimes a flight will be told to change the code...terminology is 'American 77 heavy, Cleveland Center, re-set transponder to XXXX'. (just for example).

If a transponder fails, or is turned to 'standby' (there is no 'OFF') then the controller loses the data block info generated by the ATC computers. They can, of course see the 'primary' target, the skin 'paint' from the radar.

As to NORAD....this is for others to confirm or deny, but I think that THEN (2001) there was not a lot of good communications and coordinations systems in place between the civilian ATC and the Military. It would seem that NORAD's function was to look at the perimeter of the country, and of course, space....I envision an umbrella...and not to focus or deflect their focus on the interior, where it was 'safe'...

Anyone else know more about this idea?

WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
All 757's and 767's were built with remote controlled systems. No pilot needed!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jondular
All 757's and 767's were built with remote controlled systems. No pilot needed!


jon.....*ahem*.....excuse me?

You make a valiant one-line statement, but nothing to back it up. AND you do realize, don't you, that I actually have FLOWN the B757 and B767? Many hours in them, so try again to convince me that you're right, and I'm wrong. AND, every other airline pilot is wrong...and every airline mechanic....we're all wrong, but you are the only one who knows the truth?

OK, please show us, thanks.

WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Why is this question always popping up? I have played MAYBE 2 flight simulators and I'm fully confident I could fly a plane into a building! Its not that hard, steering is just driving but in 3 dimensions



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_Hell
 


Yup, Damien....and I have crashed quite a few R/C models!! LOL!

Heck, one just flew away 'til out of sight...radio problems. Its first flight too!!! Add it really flew nicely....maybe 'cause I put the Klingon Worf in the cockpit!! Hunted for hours, in the desert, to find it, just to salvage the radio at least...no dice! Oh well, that's why they're called 'Toys for Big Boys'...gotta be willing to spend the money....

WW

ps...since I obviously know a little about R/C, and a LOT about real airplanes, I think I can certainly state my amazement at a claim that a B757 and B767 are all remote controlled...I kinda sorta have some knowledge about the subject!

[edit on 4/3/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You CAN have a plane be remote controlled. They just don't do it in common practice, cause its dangerous



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_Hell
 


YES, Damien you are correct, it CAN happen, was done some years ago on an old B720 to test a fuel additive indendend to help reduce the flame propagation in accidents.

The military has the UAVs, basically a R/C airplane fliers' wet dream, but seriously equipped and used for recon and surveilance.

I'm just saying that a Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 doesn't come off the assembly line at Paine Field equipped with R/C technology!!

If they do, then please show me the schematics....show me the electronics in the E&E compartment (know where that is?). Show me the airline mechanics who, since they work on these airplanes all the time, have seen this equipment.

Not only would it require enhanced and sophisticated electronics, there would also have to be servos, or their equivalent, to operate the cable to the flight controls (yes, unlike Airbus, Boengs still use cables, not FBW) and to the engines.

Also, the R/C pilot would also either have to see the real airplane, or at least have a camera onboard to have a Point of View...

Best, WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jondular
 


I would love to see the evidence that 757's and 767's all come fitted with r/c capability? Show me where to find that data! I hope you where just joking about that.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mthalman
 


Your stupid, planes still use pilots, therefore they aren't remote controlled, a remote controlled plane wouldn't have a cockpit, there would be no need, and a quick google search shows that both those planes, still have cockpits



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Damien_Hell
 


Hi Damien....gentle hint from a member, not a Mod or Adminstrator...

Please don't insult, it doesn't fly here at ATS. It shouldn't fly at all anywhere, 'though I know it does on YT....but that is a free-for-all, and not worthy of time or energy, IMO.

Best, WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
How could they find their target? Remote controlled chip in Boeing planes.
A pilot has filed a lawsuit claiming that a remote chip in his plane violates
his oath as a professional pilot. Some photos of the WTC planes seems to show a pod under the fuselage. We currentley are remotley flying drones in Iraq from bases in the U.S. Do a google search for more info



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by smransom51
 


smransom, see this is now nonsense gets started!!!

WHO, what is the NAME of this pilot who (allegedly) filed a lawsuit? WHAT is your source. WHEN and WHERE???

See, you just cannot come in, and make such a statement, without some sort of corroboration!!!

SO, come back and give us something to chew on and discuss!!

WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by smransom51
 


Sorry, had to re-read....'his oath'???? WHAT?

A 'chip' in the Boeing...did you not bother to read the rest of this thread???

Where are the servos? the Other Electronics, etc, etc, etc....

Really, nonsense is nonsense. Really....



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Here is link to story about pilot Lawsuit against Boeing RC Chip


www.infowars.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by smransom51
 


Oh, sorry smransom.....such a load of baloney!!

Listen, first of all, the guy who sued was on the B747....NOT a B757 or B767, although he likely flew the B757 at one point in his career....BUT since Northwest Airlines has NO B767s, never had'em, never will....then I seriously doubt he flew em!!

Secondly, the bit about explosives at the doors? Sheesh! Give me a break!!! He is referring to the slide/rafts, used in emergencies, for emergency egress!!!!

Thirdly, and I'm not familar with B747 doors, I am familar with DC-10 doors, which had a pressurized system to blow them open during emergency egress. DC-10 doors were operated electrically, in normal procedures, and went up vertically into the fuselage.

Boeing has usually stuck with the system of a door on hinges, that swings out....and yes, to make sure it goes all the way out, in emergencies, and clears the way and allows the slide/raft to inflate, a heavy B747 door might have pressurized assistance to facilitate....

So, this NorthWest guy has some other agenda....but I assure you, it has NOTHING to do with alleged explosives onboard!! Pilots can get pretty creative when they want to play the system....we once had a pilot who called in 'crazy'....said he was 'afraid' to fly....this because he'd missed so much work, he was about to get fired....later he tried to call in 'sane'...didn't work!!!




top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join