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.


passengers on all flights

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:30 PM
Thanks for all the info on this post. I have been reading the posts, links and watching the videos Lots of great information most of which is all new to me. Thanks for posting it

IT is amazing how many options there are and they are all pretty messed up.

[edit on 4/22/2009 by mblahnikluver]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by alienanderson

Actually, yes. Corporate jets were equipped with GPS receivers long before most passenger jets. It is a matter of cost. Airlines didn't need to equip with GPS...they still don't need to...UNLESS they want to operate on routes that have RNP minima where it necessitates GPS accuracy.

And, over the years, costs have dropped. future there will be more and more Instrument Landing Systems using GPS, instead of ground-based facilities alone.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Thanks, LaB, for finding that....although it is less convincing than ever!

But, it does show one thing: The never-ending mish-mash of increasingly desperate conspiracy 'theories' that continually keep popping up.

"Lead-acid batteries"....that's a new one!!!

Oh, and that tiny white speck with the big yellow arrow pointing at it? Yeah, right......makes's on the other side of the's in Positive Control airspace, yet not in contact with ATC?!?

Please, just tell me you don't pay money to any of these charlatans!

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks for all the good info on auto-pilots and such. That is something I am interested in.
I am not sure if I share with you how to make a conclusion about it.
To me, it reinforces the thought that it was not an ordinary commercial airliner that crashed into Tower II.
As for the statement about needing a human hand, that may very well be. I would have to add that it would have had to have been an expert hand.
My thing is the question of why there is no pictures of the plane that clearly show it as being a United plane.

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by jmdewey60

Thanks for your response.

There ARE pictures clearly showing the United colors. Perhaps one problem is that United Airlines keeps re-designing their paint scheme, over the years. The 'business attire' (as I call it) scheme reflected the personal preference of the CEO at one time...this is the scheme displayed by UAL175. (Funny to note, this same CEO left UA a few years after 9/11 for USAirways...and, lo and behold, THEIR paint scheme mimic the UA scheme!). Look at '' for examples.

As to the need for an 'expert'? Not really. If all you need to do is aim, then it doesn't take a lot of skill. If you have the money, and wish to go take flying lessons, you might be amazed to learn that you will usually solo after about only ten hours. In other words, you fly without your instructor (a certain 'right of passage' tradition) on only your ninth or tenth lesson, if you're of average ability. Of course, these Saudis had more than ten hours...they had licenses. One had a Commercial license (which simply means he had a MINIMUM of 250 hours).

If I had the money I'd invite average people to an experiment in a simulator, we'd video the event, and show how, with just a little familiarization, just about anyone can hit the side of a building.

Wouldn't that be a great thread on ATS??

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please, don't believe everything you hear.....

So would that necessarily include what is posted by weedwhacker (and others) here on various posts (devoid of any supporting information and links), too then?

One of my late ancestors gave me a more highly-evolved version of that same advice decades ago (and it was as sound then as it is today, but I heard a much "stronger" version back then).

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
reply to post by rhunter

OK, hunter....I accepted the challenge, and went hunting. Funny what I found just by putting in the correct search words...links? Here's a link.

I'll look for some more....

*E*....BTW, although this is from a home Flight Simulator program, and is a B737, the CDU is very similar as the CDU on the B757/767 fleet. There are only minor differences in programing logic, due to two different companies providing the original software. However, software version updates occur all of the time, so the minor differences are really only a matter of technique, for the pilot/user. (We're supposed to verify upon initialization of the IRSs to be certain the proper software version is loaded, and that the valid dates are current).

Third time back....sorry about the's not my video!!
Also, in real life lots of those manual steps are not needed, as most flight plan data is automatically uplinked, while at the gate, as part of the initialization procedure. Even the forecast winds, everything from the computer Flight Plan that Dispatch spits into the system...WE have to tell it the runway for departure, the appropriate SID, as well as the STAR and destination runway. These things change, so aren't predicted.

[edit on 4/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:09 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

But wait!!! There's more!

If you liked the first one, you'll LOVE this one!

(I swear, these airline pilot wannabes crack me up!! I'm just glad they postedd to utube so I could find them and share with y'all.)

And, some real-world actual real-life airline pilots!!! Gee, I love the Canadians! (You have to have a VERY good reason to be allowed into the cockpit on a US carrier)

[edit on 4/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Apr, 22 2009 @ 08:21 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I'm replying to myself one last time, to apologize to the OP, if necessary.

My enthusiasm got a little of me....and there is a definite trend to go off the topic from page one. Guilty as charged -- my only defense is, as threads sometimes go, they will tend to weave. The possiblity of 'remote control' was a valid point in the context of the OP, and I saw an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions.

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 01:32 AM
The Bundes Nachrichten Dienst BND (German secret service) found out that Boeing and other US airplane construction companies were forced to build inside planes bought by the German national airlines (and many other countries airlines) sophisticated systems of control devices which could be used to remotely take over those planes in case of a terrorist attack (or whatever other reason of course).
They took out all these devices.
They also discovered that Microsoft had purposely build in backdoors in their operating systems shipped all over the world to let the NSA and other alphabet soup agencies spy on every foreign government used computer.
That's why they propagated the use of LINUX which is an open source OS, and gave it the necessary push up.
They forced every German government computer with secret info on it to abandon MS and implement their own developed brand of fortified LINUX on all their official boxes.

Please read the interview translated from German into English with former top German minister Andreas von Bülow who rejects the official story of the 9/11 attacks :

Have a look at European intelligence experts dismissing the Bush "war on terrorism" as deception and reveal the Realpolitik behind the aggression against Afghanistan :

Euro Intel Experts Dismiss `War On Terrorism' As Deception :

Berlin -- In Germany, where war plans for Afghanistan were already being discussed in July and where several of the "Arab hijackers" lived and studied, intelligence experts say the terror attacks of September 11 could not have been carried out without the support of a state secret service.

Eckehardt Werthebach, former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service, Verfassungsschutz, told AFP that "the deathly precision" and "the magnitude of planning" behind the attacks of September 11 would have needed "years of planning."

Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, would require the "fixed frame" of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a "loose group" of terrorists like the one allegedly led by Mohammed Atta while he studied in Hamburg.

Many people would have been involved in the planning of such an operation and Werthebach pointed to the absence of leaks as further indication that the attacks were "state organized actions."


"Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation," Von Bülow said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. "Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions," he said adding, "those who differ are labeled as crazy."

Both Werthebach and Von Bülow said the lack of an open and official investigation, such as congressional hearings, into the events of September 11 was incomprehensible.

AFP asked Von Bülow about the Taliban's ban on opium production: "Seventy percent of the drug trade is licensed by the intelligence agencies," Von Bülow said, and they are interested in keeping the drug traffic "running through their mills."

"The BND (German secret service) is steered by the CIA and the CIA is steered by Mossad," Von Bülow said.

Horst Ehmke, who coordinated the German secret services directly under German prime minister Willi Brandt in the 70s, predicted a similar terrorist attack in his novel, Torches of Heaven, published last year (LT: 2000 ß), in which Turkish terrorists crash hijacked planes into Berlin.

That is just a tiny piece of info on all the ongoing machinations of the secret services all around us operating their little games. Over the years most of them prove to be ridiculous.

Only a few proved to be disastrous, like the US push to the rise of the NAZI party in Germany to form a block to their so feared enemy, the Communist USSR.
And the US push to cut off the so needed resources to the Japanese government to force them to attack Pearl Harbor and give them their so sought after reason to let the US participate in WWII and thus at last correct their much earlier push for the rise of the German NAZI party, and these NAZI's inevitable start after that, of WWII.

This is how things inevitably come always back on you when you do evil deeds :
FBI Fears Chinese Hackers Have Back Door Into US Government & Military
See my post there.

NSA is Microsoft's (and Vista's) Backdoor VIP :

[edit on 23/4/09 by LaBTop]

posted on Apr, 23 2009 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker
I think it would be a good idea to have a thread on how the so-called "hijackers" hit the buildings on 911. I am working on the question in my own rather limited sort of way. As an example of what I mean, if you look at the video you embedded on your post, (not the one with a person's hand) you can see the cockpit panel from a simulator model. I just downloaded that one yesterday. It is pretty complete and gives a better idea of what it looks like in real life. I have a video up on Video & Media with a more generic type panel and not especially realistic. Right now, I am concentrating my video-making efforts on using the flight simulator method of getting an idea of what went on with the plane. I apparently have a certain advantage in that I had a good view of the plane on 911, so I do not have the distraction of thinking I have to disprove the claim that real planes hit the towers. I am trying to make a recreation of what I saw, since there does not seem to be a readily available video of it, though I am sure there is one, someplace. I went as far as asking a "spook" that I know, if he could find out about any secret videos that might exist. Of course nothing will ever come of that. I guess my point is that I am accumulating what I can, in the way of knowledge of flying in general, and simulators in particular, just to make a decent video of what should be out there (in my opinion) for anyone to see.
As for actually taking lessons, I live close enough to take lessons right where Atta took his, at Venice Airport, but do not have the money for that. The beach right next to the airport is my favorite beach spot and the planes fly right overhead. That is about as close to real planes as I would like to be.
Now, with this simulator I am using, you can put the camera in a certain spot and watch the plane fly by. It might seem a simple enough thing but to make it right, you have to have the plane flying at the right speed because planes behave differently at different speeds. What I have to do is work at locating the camera as the plane flies in a circle around me. Then I have to fly the plane out of sight to get where it can come back at a steep enough slope to be going fast enough when it eventually comes back to being viewable. I have to track it on another screen and use the way-points to guide it. All this might seem pretty straightforward and simple, but it is not. (witnessed by the fact that I do not have a video of it up) It is something like flying a radio controlled plane but where you can not actually see the plane during most of the flight.
I need to also learn how to program the flight control to see how that works out. I am a real newbie to simulators and it is kind of a steep learning curve to all the intricacies of it.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in