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.

 

Planes can be Electronically Hijacked, This is fact.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Planes of any size can be hijacked using electronics. One of these systems are called "Homerun" which allows planes in distress or hijacked be commandeered by a group remotely.

Most airliners land in auto pilot from time to time. To hijack a plane is quite easy using the systems that are installed in these aircraft.

On 911 there were over 13 hijacked aircraft. Some of these planes were taking place in a live fly anti hijacking exercise taking place on 911.

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.
www.geocities.com...

Here is a video from way back that shows that the technology existed even though it was crude it was possible. Remote controlled using on board tv's and used as flying bombs just like what happened on 911.


Interesting a kennedy died in that opeation.

This next video is from a show called "The Lone Gunmen" It was reelased before 911 and filmed in 2000.


I hope this thread will educate on how 911 was pulled off.


[edit on 3-10-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Occam's razor-The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

The simplest answer is that there were real people on the planes flying them. Who controlled and funded those people is the real question.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
If one were to ask, who would electronically hijacked aircraft during a hijacking exercise and using this exercise as cover to execute the attacks, many fingers point to PTECH

Ptech is of course the high level technology firm by top bin Laden financier Yassin al Qahdi(who works with Khalid Bin Mahfouz, named in the 'Golden Chain') that by 1996 was deeply immersed in top US government network computer systems like a neo PROMIS INSLAW.
Ptech had networks in the basement of the FAA as of 9/11, along with Mitre.
forum.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Tesla
 


The world is NOT a simple place my friend unfortunately. Truth is stranger than fiction!



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Tesla
Occam's razor-The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

The simplest answer is that there were real people on the planes flying them. Who controlled and funded those people is the real question.


Interesting you posted a response without even reviewing the video. Your time stamp proves this. Your response is a classic ploy to reinforce the official story with hopes of derailing the topic.

It wont any longer.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Why would they review the video? They've been programmed to know everything about what happened and how it happened.

Great video though. I didn't even know they had remote-control technology in the 1940's.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Absolute rubbish!!!

I don't know who this bloke from London is, but he's a moron. This is just another in a string of wild fantiasies that have grown up since September 11th.

Here's MORE from the geocities "article" where I will point out complete fabrications and factual errors that throw serious doubt on the qualifications, knowledge and sanity of the person who wrote it.


Activating the primary Home Run channel proved to be easy. Most readers will have heard of a “transponder”, prominent in most news reports immediately following the attacks on New York and Washington. Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver which operates automatically....


WRONG!!!!! Wrong, wrong, wrong. This to any pilot is enough to show that this guy is an idiot. OR a liar, not certain which.

A transponder, firstly, does NOT receive, other than the intrrogatory from the radar facility, which it then 'squawks' back to. AND, the transponder does NOT "operate automatically"!!!! Utter nonsense.



The signals sent provide a unique “identity” for each aircraft...


WRONG!!! Each transponder has four digits, each can be dialed from Zero through seven. There is no eight or nine.

This gives a possible combination of 4096 different transponder codes. (Astute readers who are mathematicians will note that there are more 'possible' combinations, but certain codes are NOT used...hence the 4096, which you will sometimes see the transponders referred to by.)


...essential in crowded airspace to avoid mid-air collisions...


NO!!! Not "essential". But, a tool that is considered 'required' in order to accomodate more airplanes, and assist radar controllers. IF THERE WERE no transponders, airplanes could still be ooperated safely, but not as many and the system would be slow and cumbersome.


...and equally essential for Home Run controllers trying to lock onto the correct aircraft.


There is NO SUCH THING as "Home Run" or any other 'code' word for this, there is no such program AT ALL!!! I cannot be more certain of this. It does not exist.

There is nothing to "lock on" to. The transponder codes, as mentioned, are set BY HAND by the crew. They are assigned as part of the Flight Plan if on an IFR flight. For instance, say your day flying a passenger jet is going to be three legs. LAX to SAN to DFW. Then on to ORD for an overnight. OK? Flight "1" from LA to San Diego will have a code assigned in your ATC clearance...say it's 3214. You land in SAN ,and prepare for the next leg. You get a NEW ATC clearance. So, this flight (how about Flight "348") has a different code...say it's 4626. And so on...the code does NOT matter, except for that particular flight. Capice?


Once it has located the correct aircraft, Home Run “piggy backs” a data transmission onto the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground.


Hogwash!!!! As I've said, the transponder is NOT a receiver, in the sense intended here. AND, it is not connected IN ANY WAY to any flight control systems on the airplane! It is a passive device, that transmits. Period.



This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft.


MORE rubbish! This guy is a dope!

There are exactly two ways to inform ATC of a hijacking: Verbally on the radio (either in the clear, or with certain code words if speaking in the clear is not possible) or by MANUALLY changing the 'squawk' code on the transponder to a specific four-digit number. (There is one other way to communicate to the Airline Dispatch and Operations center, via the ACARS system...but that will take a long time to explain. AND it goes to the AIRLINE, who then would notify ATC via telephone).



Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible.


More bullpucky.

Last thing the pilots would have had time for was to change the transponder codes. They were taken by surprise, from behind and attacked. If anything they would have spoken on the radio, in the clear...in fact, one ATC tape has the shouts of "Get out of here!" that was recorded over an open mic.....


All of what this guy says is pathetic, and there is NO accomplished pilot on Earth who would do anything except laugh at him.....



[edit on 3 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


I appreciate You bringing this to the forum. I've studied a little of it, and from what I've seen it is some scary stuff. Of course should anyone wish to listen to weedwhacker, then also please allow him to reprogram You that the govt. is good, and they're here to help
What a load of horse poo...


Thanks OP S&F



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


While I always appreciate the level of discourse and expertise YOU bring to these forums......

There is a vast difference between fantasy and reality.

Since I am, atm directly responding to and addressing a member [color=biege]sanchoearlyjones for the enjoyment and edification of ATS at large, please allow me this one indiscretion and break from ATS protocol.


Of course should anyone wish to listen to weedwhacker, then also please allow him to reprogram You that the govt. is good, and they're here to help What a load of horse poo...



At NO point, ever, in ANY of my posts do I ever state anything of the sort attributed me by the above member.

The very point of a conspiracy website, and Forum, such as ATS provides is to discuss ACTUAL topics of plausibly relevant conspiracies.

This is a diverse group of individuals, who each brings a unique perspective. AND, each also can bring a level of experience and knowledge that is not shared by others...thus, it is collaborative.

Apparently, the fact that I possess a fairly good vocabulary, and can use 'SpellCheck' on my posts (with fair consistency) AND possess an extensive life experience in aviation, and aviation-related matters that INCLUDE over 30 years of flying somehow equates me in certain people's eyes to being a "Govern Mint Shill" or something. This troubles me, not because of attacks on my character, but because of the basic poor level of serious contemplation that has evolved on this site, of late....since I joined barely two years ago.

Sorry for the rant, and it's seemingly off-topic nature, but when a thread is started that has not YET been put into the "HOAX' bin, then it is a duty, I feel, to step up and present evidence that shows the premise to be flawed from the start, lest it become yet another "Urban Legend" and grow legs of its own....

There are certainly many topics worthy of "conspiracy" status. BUT to flail out and attack someone who brings ACTUAL experience and knowledge to a topic is a sign NOT of a person striving to "Deny Ignorance". Instead, it is an indication that a person revels in the "poop"-stirring, seemingly just for the fun of it.

In my book, that is one of the definitions of trolling, as applies to the "InterTubes".

I am NOT accusing any individual in this young thread of such tactics, and certainly NOT sancho, because I have read quite a few of HIS threads and have seen great contributions to ATS. I don't comment on many of them, because I HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE as to their veracity. And, I may not find many of them compelling enough to comment on.

BUT, when I see obvious DISinformation....I MUST respond. I have the experience, and knowledge sets to have not just an OPINION, but the FACTS on my side.

I welcome any and all questions on the OP'S topic.

I will leave this last thought: I suggest that IF you have the tendency to believe ANY of this "remote control" nonsense, then take some time, go to an airport and ASK pilots you can stop and get to talk to you.

Don't just sit there behind the CRT and read, and say "Wow! It's there on the Internet, so it must be true!" Go check for yourselves!

The polite pilots will answer respectfully, but don't be put off if some others just laugh at you....pilots, like everyone else, are people first. With the same personal flaws. AND it depends on your approach, and environment....context.

Pilots are used to answering questions from laypeople...especially those posed by children.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


But you're not denying they can be remotely flown are you?

EDIT:

Let me add that I appreciate your knowledge in the aviation field and will admit that most planes probably do not have this capability. BUT, that doesn't mean that some planes don't or that the technology doesn't exist.

I've read a lot of articles, ones not on Geocities, and seen a lot of videos of the technology being demonstrated and used to fly and land planes.

Also, have you seen the clip for the Pilot Episode of the Lone Gunmen?

Either that is a GINORMOUS Coincidence or you know, something else.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by mkross1983]

Second EDIT:

Star and Flag OP, thanks for the info.


[edit on 3-10-2009 by mkross1983]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanchoearlyjones
Of course should anyone wish to listen to weedwhacker, then also please allow him to reprogram You that the govt. is good, and they're here to help
What a load of horse poo...

Just for the record, while Weedwhacker and I are on different sides of the fence, me being a 9/11 truther and Weedwhacker being a 9/11 anti-truther (j/k), I respect Weedwhacker's opinions and expertise as a professional pilot. One only needs to confer with any other professional pilot to know whether Weedwhacker is being honest or not.

While Weedwhacker doesn't buy into a conspiracy (yet) about 9/11, he sure does know what he's talking about when it comes to planes and flying. So at least give him that much respect.

You only make yourself look foolish if you disrespect another individual without providing some sort of facts to prove that individual wrong, and I doubt you will find anything that will show Weedwhacker to be wrong when it comes to this subject.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
PLEASE

Let's not derail a thread by getting personal.

[edit on 3/10/09 by masqua]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mkross1983
 



But you're not denying they can be remotely flown are you?


Good question. A lot of the FACTS that I presented may have clouded th core question, that you just asked.

I AM denying that the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 (or ANY commercial airliner --- or business jet --- or any other civilian jet you wish to include) can be "remotely" flown. NOT in the way suggested by what the OP found, and posted.

The systems are just not connected in the way suggested. To achieve such a feat would take an incredible effort, and even then it would be noticeable....many, many people would be involved, there is a lot to take into account.

NOW....don't misunderstand me, I am well aware of the existence of "drones" currently. These are easily researched and nown to exist, BUT you have to understand that they are specifically designed from the beginning for their function.

It IS incredible technology...at first glance...but if you look deeper, it really isn't. What WOULD be more incredible is to be able to retro-fit a commercially-built airliner to accomodate a full remote-control suite...this would need to include cameras to provide the remote pilot a visual perspective. ALL of the interface tech to operate the controls. Antenna placements for the uplilnk/downlinks required for the control datastream, with redundancy unless you wish to accept a possible failure of a critical component, and loss of the vehicle....shall I go on?


There is an instance of an old Boeing 720 that was made remote-controllable back in the early 1980s. It included the cooperation of NASA in designing the interfaces. The POINT of it was to crash on purpose, to test a fuel additive intended to reduce the atomization of the fuel, in a crash, and lessen the fire potential.

They did NOT have to provide a means to change flap/slat settings, since they used the same flap/slat settings for the takeoff as for the approach. They DID have to retract the gear, after takeoff. They left it up for the "crash".

The airplane was never flown above a certain speed...no more than about 200 knots, probably less. The intended "crash" point was to simulate a landing accident, with flaps/slats and gear....into 'obstacles' that would simulate a landing short of the runway, which was a common type of accident back then.

the "remote" pilot began to "lose" control of the airplane in the last minutes...so the impact was not as predicted, and the fire-restriction technology was a failure. (He didn't hit level, as planned). Reason for the Pilot's problem? A characteristic of the B720, some pilots call it "wing walk", the correct term is "pilot induced ocsillation". It was common in the B707/720 at slow speeds with flaps extended (this is different from "Dutch Roll", which is a high-speed high-altitude phenom).

NOW, imagine with ALL of that preparation, and everybody watching, and they STILL had difficulty remote flying? Why? Because it's bloody hard, that's why!!!

I have hobby, flying model airplanes by R/C. Even WITH my experience inside airplanes, it is much, much harder to fly one if you're just using your eyes only, without the normal sensory and sound cues you get when onboard.


Still , it DID provide new information about passenger seat design and stuff...just like they do in automobile crash tests.


Here's the silent footage:
www.spike.com...

AND, here's the "spin" put on it by the narrator!:
www.spike.com...

More info:

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility.

Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.


Do understand what that means??? They PRACTICED!!! A lot. AND YET, still screwed it up on the "big day"!!!!


It was planned that the aircraft would land wings-level and exactly on the centerline during the CID, thus allowing the fuselage
to remain intact as the wings were sliced open by eight posts cemented into the runway. The Boeing 720 landed askew and
caused a cabin fire when burning fuel was able to enter the fuselage.

It was not exactly the impact that was hoped for, but research from the CID program yielded new data on impact survivability which helped establish new FAA rules regarding fire prevention and retardant materials. Although proponents argued that AMK prevented a hotter, more catastrophic fire during the CID, FAA requirements for the additive were put on the back burner.


www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

So, I hope everyone learned a little bit, here......



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, I will acknowledge that your information is very good and your posts very thorough! Def A+ for your posts.

As for the technology, I admit there is a LOT of it I don't understand and I have never flown an aircraft so you are way ahead of me in that regard.

I understand the video footage better than I ever have thanks to your information.

The thing I still wonder about though, is, if this was possible in the 80's, surely we could do it better now?

Also, we all know that the Government has black budgets and projects not on the books. What if this plane was designed from the get go to BE flown remotely?

I know this leaves a lot of questions and probably a lot of people would have to be involved but what I have to ask myself if, does the evidence provided by the Government for the reasons behind 9/11 make sense? And the answer is a resounding NO!

There are all kinds of reports of ATC's reporting the plane that hit the Pentagon doing maneuvers that no ordinary pilot could do. There is a enormous amount of evidence that does not add up to the official explanation.

I'm left thinking, could the Government with it's unlimited resources be able to do this somehow? I don't know, nobody does, but I suspect there is more to the story.

I don't know how the technology would work, how they would trick the pilot, or if the plane was empty, where the people went to. I just know a lot of it doesn't make any sense at all.

I truly appreciate your posts though and am glad someone so knowledgeable is on ATS!



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Tesla
 


When the entire context of all evidence, phenomenon and information, including that of explosive demolition of the twin towers, is factored in, then Occam's Razor slices in favour of the notion that there was no one on board the planes which impacted the twin towers on 9/11.

It is the simplest explanation in light of all phenomenon and information available, and that is how Occam's Razor works, as a scientific evaluative precept.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mkross1983
 



I've read a lot of articles, ones not on Geocities, and seen a lot of videos of the technology being demonstrated and used to fly and land planes.

Also, have you seen the clip for the Pilot Episode of the Lone Gunmen?


I appreciate what you're asking.

Something that is NOT able to be addressed here is the complexity of certain other facets of those technologies, I.E. configuring for landing and such.

BUT...the base intent of this thread is the overt taking of control, of the airplanes on 9/11.

I will not state categorically that it is IMPOSSIBLE, because that would be stupid. Given enough time and effort and man hours, there are ways that I can imagine (and only guess in some places) that it might...MIGHT...be accomplished.

HOWEVER.....there currently exists NO autopilot that can't be over-powered by brute Human strength, on the controls.

Just to describe, for a moment, how the controls work on JUST the Boeing 757. As designed originally.

Just focusing on the ailerons and elevators, for the moment, which are controlled by the 'yoke' or control wheel....photo here:

www.airliners.net...
(Note, please....the rudder pedals below as well. Actual dimensions, while I've never measured it, just from experience it is about 10-11 inches wide, where you see the two 'yokes' on each side. More info, from that photo...it is the Captain's side...so the Stab trim Switches on on the upper left portion -- those two switches, also called 'pickle switches'...below them is another button, that is one way to disconnect the AutoPilot. Push it once, the A/P disconnects. Double-click it, like a mouse button, and it disconnects AND cancels the aural disconnect warning and lights).

Back to controls: Below the control column, in the floor, are cables that attach. They are routed aft to where the main Landing Gear retract (the Wheel Wells) and THERE are located the hydraulic valves that, when operated by the cables attached to the column, control the actuators out on the wing, or in the tail at the horizontal stabilizer, to move the control surfaces. These actuators are connected to the Wheel Wells via the hydraulic fluid lines...so the cables go just to about the mid portion of the fuselage, and then the controls are operated hydraulically from there.

Make sense? I wish I had a diagram....don't know how to upload a scan...there may be resources on the web that show the schematics.

Point is, the AutoPilot, when active, simply moves those CABLES, througha clutch assembly. You can easily overpower the clutches....(actually the A/P will sense that and disconnect when that happens).

AND, in extreme cases....EVERY electrical component on the airplane has a circuit breaker...just think of the fuses in your car. PLUS, we can completely de-power entire common electrical buses at will...which would be a simple way to re-gain control IF some imaginary system was trying to exert its prescence.

The notion of a pilot unable to do anything, and just be a hapless impotent "passenger" while someone on the 'ground' takes over is just ridiculous.









[edit on 3 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


And the body parts that ended up on the streets of Manhatten, that were collected prior to the buildings collapse then matched to people on the jets got there....how?

It is truly amazing how people create such complicated scenarios to explain their theories....and then proclaim that Occam's razor proves them right....



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 



...then Occam's Razor slices in favour of the notion that there was no one on board the planes which impacted the twin towers on 9/11.


Sorry, Omega...Occham's Razor, in your application, is misapplied.

In fact, as I've endeavoured to point out repeatedly, it would be MORE difficult to remotely pilot into the targets, as seen, than it would be for a Human onboard to do it.

(Maybe this Christmas you'll get a toy remote control car or airplane...THEN you may get what I'm saying).

Since there is ample evidenc of the remains of Humans from the airplanes, then the Occham's razor also falls short.

Really, Occham when applied correctly speaks to the actual truth, of willing suiciders flying the jets. There is no other logical conclusion, based on all the available evidence. It is ONLY when some people IGNORE all of the evidence, in favor of selectively cherry-picked items, that the misconception lives on.

Funny how, cetain sides of the so-called 'truth movement' who are so ready to claim that "experienced pilots in simulators can't reproduce the impacts".....yet they will embrace the notion of a remote-controlled impact? Several orders of magnitude MORE difficult than actually sitting in the seat, manipulating the controls, having all the sensory cues...g-forces, sounds, sensations that pilots use almost subconsciously when flying....there is no way to describe, in words, the difference.

I can only compare, for you, to driving a car. Compare your real-world experience of being in a car, to trying to do it sitting in a chair and just looking at a computer screen, and attempting to operate it remotely. No comparison.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Sorry 'bout that. Looks like either ATS had a little hiccup or my connection did.

Here's what I was working on (thank God for copy and paste eh? :up
:

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, that image is info overload for me, lol, waaaay too many buttons and gauges.

But, you pointed out the main factor in the beginning though. The aircraft didn't have to land.

What if the pilot simply didn't override the remote capabilities? Or, for the sake of just thinking out loud, what if the plane was hijacked by terrorists and the pilot and co-pilot WERE taken out or otherwise incapacitated. The terrorists aiming for the buildings wouldn't be the ones to disable the remote system. Plus, I doubt only a very few passengers could do anything with the controls even if they regained control of the aircraft. I know the passengers lists show that one of the flights had a pilot dead-weighting (prob have the term wrong) but if the terrorists did actually took over the craft that wouldn't be any help. The passengers would have to radio for help if they could figure out how that works unless the pilot was still available.

Or I mean, what about this?

The pilot takes the plane up, everything is normal, then some kind of gas is release in the plane that puts everyone to sleep or whatever have you, the remote system is enabled and around the plane goes and into the buildings without ever having to worry about landing it?

I've got to try to think of all the possibilities no matter how crazy or far-fetched they seem b/c the alternative is to believe the official story which I simply cannot do.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


And the body parts that ended up on the streets of Manhatten, that were collected prior to the buildings collapse then matched to people on the jets got there....how?

It is truly amazing how people create such complicated scenarios to explain their theories....and then proclaim that Occam's razor proves them right....


A little off topic there (resident debunker who hates conspiracy theories but yet hangs out in one of the largest conspiracy sites).

Can you provide a link that states that? Is it the same source that states the alleged hijacker's passport flew out of his pocket and landed on some street corner after ripping through the World trade center?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join