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.

 

Electronically Hijacking the WTC Attack Aircraft

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Hi there, forgive me if this has been posted before, the atricle is dated 2001.

This article by a British aeronautical engineer, explains how the planes were fitted with a device to allow them to be flown remotley, this is apparently a saftey system fitted to planes incase of hyjackings or other circumstances where a plane would need to be remotley flown to saftey. This system was hajacked and the planes were flown remotley into the towers is the theory.

He goes on to explain that this device when in use would leave a blank voice recording on the CVR, which is apparently the case for the recovered black boxes.

here is the link
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...


Did a little related googleing and found this article
www.911-strike.com...

goes into it a bit more,
quote
"We can only conclude that the hijack recovery capability could easily have been implemented as a secret project well prior to September 11; but also that if it had not been built as a standard capability, it could also have been uploaded as a simple software upgrade for specific mission requirements."

and

"It would probably be possible to add a remote control to the 757/767 with software changes only, but such a system would only be effective if the crew (and presumably the hijackers) were somehow disabled or detained or otherwise prevented from wrestling with the yoke to override the computer controls"


in my mind this explanation helps work out a few flaws such as the precise flying skills of badly trained pilots, lack of voice recorder data on the black boxes and why none of the flights "sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code

I wondered if anyone had any comments on this.


Final note
I checked the name Joe Vialls, who wrote the initial article and he has been accused of been a disinfo agent..

www.shootersnews.addr.com...

so its up to you who you want to believe......




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
UK Intel telling us how 9/11 happened, thats rich.
Yes, remote hijack or just remote controlled planes.
Or no planes just explosives to knock out the core beams.

Make it simple and easy to do, that makes a successful attack.

However the plane crashes did the impossible and not just an
Osama 'death to America' statement of crashed planes.

I believe the security statement that northing was in the wind
before 9/11. It wasn't Osama but something more sinister.

ED: I didn't think the black boxes were real, just planted.


[edit on 7/1/2008 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by beefeaterThis article by a British aeronautical engineer, explains how the planes were fitted with a device to allow them to be flown remotley, this is apparently a saftey system fitted to planes incase of hyjackings or other circumstances where a plane would need to be remotley flown to saftey. This system was hajacked and the planes were flown remotley into the towers is the theory.


No such system have ever existed on any comercial airliner, does not exist at present, and will not exist in near future.
Nasa/Boeing have done some serious research on this, and concluded that it would not add to the safety at all, but create
many new unforseen problems due to the lack of technology and infastructure today.

Then add that most pilots would never accept an aircraft able to be controlled from any other place than the flightdeck.



He goes on to explain that this device when in use would leave a blank voice recording on the CVR, which is apparently the case for the recovered black boxes.


BS! The CVR is a standalone system that's not coupled with any of the other systems onboard exept electrical transfer busses.



"We can only conclude that the hijack recovery capability could easily have been implemented as a secret project well prior to September 11; but also that if it had not been built as a standard capability, it could also have been uploaded as a simple software upgrade for specific mission requirements."


Also BS! The B757/67 is NOT fly by wire, they have NO central computer controlling everything onboard.
More like several computers that makes up the Autoflight System, and can be disconnected at any time.

In manual flight the control sufaces is being moved just about the same way as the powersteering on a car, hydromechanical controls.
Could probably be done on some FBW Airbusses, but i guess it would take a little more than just software upgrade as Real Time Systems
used on commercial airliners have several layers of safety features preventing unwanted access.

This cr@p is written by a person with poor or no understanding of how flight systems and flight management systems in modern airliners works, or a person with a certain agenda.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SickSoul
 


I believe you are correct sir.
I was on a satellite communications forum at the time and they
were up on the status of commercial aircraft.

UK Intel BS telling us how 9/11 happened.

We know what 9/11 was and the UFO and 'free energy' secrets as well.
And we know BS.
Thanks Mr. SickSoul.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
This has been discussed before on ATS and is a matter of some controversy. Here are a couple of links. Personally, I think the real story here is buried deep within the inner circles of Boeing.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...


QRS-11 gyrochip

Between 2000 and 2003, Boeing exported commercial jets with a QRS-11 gyrochip in the instrument flight boxes, even though the chip was classified by the State Department as an export-restricted defense item because it can be used to stabilize and steer guided missiles.



www.straightaero.com...


Are Boeing fitting their aircraft with illegal devices that could enable terrorists to remotely hijack airliners and crash them into high profile targets? In light of what happened on 9/11, Boeing's blanket denial that this practice has taken place is both highly suspicious and a threat to national security . . .

According to the Seattle Times, "The QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., is just over 1-½ inches in diameter and weighs about 2 ounces. It sells for between $1,000 and $2,000. Described as "a gyro on a chip," it is used to help control the flight of missiles and aircraft." . . .

Recent newspaper reports discussing these devices and the policy to have them in all airliners within three years assure us that they would prevent another 9/11 style outrage - but because any such system is vulnerable to hacking allied with the fact that pilots have no way of overriding the autopilot, not even with secure access codes, this only increases the chances of another 9/11 style attack.

A comprehensive investigation on behalf of those who have the authority and resources to perform it needs to be mandated immediately into whether devices that completely remove control of a plane from the pilot and that have illegally been installed in many existing aircraft are a fundamental danger to national security.


Thought I should add that although the first news story references a time between 2000 and 2003, it is possible that the offending gizmo was available for 9/11/01 deployment as well.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by ipsedixit]

Thought I should add that I just realized that '01 is between '00 and '03, which only underlines the confidence I have in the first edit. I need another cup of coffee.



[edit on 4-7-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Or no planes just explosives to knock out the core beams.



Ah, of course, so you're suggesting that every single communications tower in America is working on behalf of the elite by refusing to admit that those planes don't exist?

Really now, there were far too many eyes in the sky to think that there were no planes that day, i don't know where "You people" come up with these ideas.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
No such system have ever existed on any comercial airliner, does not exist at present, and will not exist in near future.


I am afraid you are very much mistaken.

The British have a sytem installed on one of thier Tornado fighters that can take over control of an hijacked airliner.

I suggest you do some more research on this subject.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SickSoul
 


At first when I read this I thought man this guy is really poorly informed, then I glanced over at your "debunkers badge" on your avatar.

Please refer to EXpidixit post above all of the info is there, it was and is possible . The planes were sold through Boeing, some to China others to god knows where..and without question a good chance they may have been embedded and activated that day on 9-11. There are plenty of MSM reporting these facts.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShotabelAt first when I read this I thought man this guy is really poorly informed, then I glanced over at your "debunkers badge" on your avatar.


Poor attempt on some humor (lots of you conspiracy theorists desperatly need that) .

For both Shotabel and Ultima:

I've flown Boeings and Airbusses for nearly 39 years, if and when i need help from conspiracy theorists to do my job i'll let you know.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
I've flown Boeings and Airbusses for nearly 39 years, if and when i need help from conspiracy theorists to do my job i'll let you know.


JUST TO PROVE THAT YOU MIGHT KNOW HOW TO FLY PLANES BUT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE REMOTE SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPMENT. TO PROVE YOU WRONG HERE IS THE INFORMATION ON THE BRITISH SYSTEM FOR TAKING OVER PLANES BY REMOTE CONTROL.

technology.newscientist.com...

The pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner carrying members of the press, including New Scientist, and flying at an altitude of 4500 metres (15000 feet).



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SickSoul
I've flown Boeings and Airbusses for nearly 39 years, if and when i need help from conspiracy theorists to do my job i'll let you know.


JUST TO PROVE THAT YOU MIGHT KNOW HOW TO FLY PLANES BUT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE REMOTE SYSTEMS IN DEVELOPMENT. TO PROVE YOU WRONG HERE IS THE INFORMATION ON THE BRITISH SYSTEM FOR TAKING OVER PLANES BY REMOTE CONTROL.

technology.newscientist.com...

The pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner carrying members of the press, including New Scientist, and flying at an altitude of 4500 metres (15000 feet).


Well mr Ultima, the only thing that your post shows is that you left your capslock on.

Sorry, give me some solid evidence please!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
Sorry, give me some solid evidence please!


So what do you not believe about the British system that you need more evidence? What is it going to take to get your closed mind opened to facts and evidence ?



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by SickSoul
Sorry, give me some solid evidence please!


So what do you not believe about the British system that you need more evidence? What is it going to take to get your closed mind opened to facts and evidence ?


Prove that it was done on Boeings, not just a test but a full scale project that enables someone to take control of the aircraft and actually fly it
without the approval of the flightcrew.

You can't!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
Prove that it was done on Boeings, not just a test but a full scale project that enables someone to take control of the aircraft and actually fly it
without the approval of the flightcrew.


Can you read ?

If you cannot read the site i posted even shows a video of the British airliner being taken over and flown by the tornado.

media.newscientist.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Can you read ?


Sure, and the One eleven went out of business when i was a senior first officer.

Come on Ultima you can do better than that!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
Come on Ultima you can do better than that!


Please answer a simple question after watching the video, and be truthful.

Does the fighter take remote control of the airliner, YES or NO?



[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Does the fighter take remote control of the airliner, YES or NO?


Yes, but i want you to prove that it has ever been done on a Boeing! Not just being in the neighbour aircraft but from several thousends of miles away as you guys claimes!

And dont gimme that Nasa 707, they had it in sight all the time and still allmost crashed twice.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
Yes, but i want you to prove that it has ever been done on a Boeing! Not just being in the neighbour aircraft but from several thousends of miles away as you guys claimes!


Well at least you are adult enough to admit the video does show the airliner is being taken over by remote control.

You might want to look at this litlte quote from the site too.

In addition to cutting the number of pilots risked in military operations, the remote control system could one day also be used to auto-land hijacked planes.


I for one never stated it was remote controlled from thousands of miles away. Where are you getting your information from ?





[edit on 4-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
The thing is: You conspiracy nutters are claiming that there's some hidden microchip in the plane that i'm flying for a living that enables uncle sam (or usama for that matter) to fly it without my knowledge as the commander.

I want you to prove that beyond any doubt.

You can't!

Gotta fly, but i'll be back!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
The thing is: You conspiracy nutters are claiming that there's some hidden microchip in the plane that i'm flying for a living that enables uncle sam (or usama for that matter) to fly it without my knowledge as the commander.


Well see that were you are wrong to begin with. I am looking for the truth of what happened that day, since when is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

Actually the only conspiracy theory is the official story since its based on a conspiracy and there is no actual evidence to support the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join