Planes can be Electronically Hijacked, This is fact.

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....

Yeah, I haven't been able to make myself believe that the people weren't on the flights b/c I cannot come up with anything about where they would have gone to.

Then there is the little fact that, there isnt an avionic system around that cannot be disabled by pulling a circuit breaker. One pull and the system wont work.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I definitely see your point in the comparison here.

Something I have thought about this though is what about an immersion system like fighter pilots and Astronauts go through where the environment is projected all around them on screens and they have real controls and surround sound to assist them and make the situation as real as possible?

I imagine that this is some what how the drones are controlled rather than just on a flat screen and a viewing window. I IMAGINE, I obviously don't have any idea how they do it.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


I love that Passport!

We should make all important documents out of whatever material they used for it!

reply to post by mkross1983


You're practicing writing a movie screenplay, maybe???

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.

That pretty well sums it up.

The terrorists aiming for the buildings wouldn't be the ones to disable the remote system.

Problem is, there IS NO "remote system"!!! Please understand this concept.

IF such a system existed, then I (and all of my colleagues at the airline) would have been trained on it.

Plus, I doubt only a very few passengers could do anything with the controls even if they regained control of the aircraft.

Actually, a recent episode of Mythbusters addressed this very topic.

Adam and Jamie COULD land safely (with assistance on the radio...)...however, you bring up a very good point below:

I know the passengers lists show that one of the flights had a pilot dead-weighting (prob have the term wrong)...

LOL!!!! yes, (wiping eyes)...that term is technically wrong, but it is so funny, it hurts!!! "Dead Head" is the term. 'Dead weight'!! Very funny, thanks!

Anyway, I hadn't heard whether there was an off-duty pilot onboard one of the airplanes, either an American or United pilot, or one from another airline (a 'perk' afforded as a professional courtesy...'free' rides). Obviouslly, had control been taken back, he would have been able to safely land....

The passengers would have to radio for help if they could figure out how that works unless the pilot was still available.

Well, if the pilot was still available, but unable to fly, then he would be able to assist. If he was incapacitated (unconscious) then he's of no use. THAT was one issue not addressed by Jamie and Adam...just HOW to operate the radios, and WHAT frequency to use...HOW to tune them, etc, etc. Given enough time (they had plenty of fuel) and even though the Flight Attendants aren't pilots, they would have enough experience to be at least slightly familiar, and could possibly help to some extent.

.... then some kind of gas is release in the plane that puts everyone to sleep or whatever have you....

Leave that for the bad hollywood screenplay I mentioned. IF it ever makes it to screen, it's for pilots like me to cringe, yell and throw popcorn...because it's stupid!!!

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Then there is the little fact that, there isnt an avionic system around that cannot be disabled by pulling a circuit breaker. One pull and the system wont work.

Again, most passengers wouldn't know where to look or how to do this in an aircraft system and if terrorists really did take over the plane they certainly wouldn't be the ones to do it.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by mkross1983]

The terrorists aiming for the buildings wouldn't be the ones to disable the remote system.

Problem is, there IS NO "remote system"!!! Please understand this concept.

IF such a system existed, then I (and all of my colleagues at the airline) would have been trained on it.

But you're still thinking of a REGULAR aircraft though. I'm talking about ones specifically designed to be controlled remotely which is something completely different. If they could do it, however crudely, in the 80's I'm sure that with enough time and resources they could perfect a system of control especially one where they don't have to worry about taking off or landing.

lol, I knew I had the term wrong but glad it made you laugh anyways!

I know the gassing thing sounds funny but it would be the easiest way to take control of the aircraft. Plus if you've designed the aircraft for this purpose why not incorporate it? I think it would probably be the easiest thing to do really. No battles for control at all. Released after a certain amount of time, the remote system which was specifically designed for this is turned on and bam, you're good to go.

I haven't seen that episode of Myth Busters. But like you mention, you need help to bring it down and you need to know how to work the radio which most people most likely do not.

An important thing to remember is that out of the 19 or so hijackers, I think 7 of them (I'd have to double check, can't remember exact numbers) are still alive and said as much after being accused of being involved. I mean, how do you work that one out?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
It is truly amazing how people create such complicated scenarios to explain their theories....and then proclaim that Occam's razor proves them right....

It is truly amazing how people blindly believe the fairy tale they were told without questioning it's accuracy.

I bet you didn't read or simply forgot the part in "Operation Northwoods" about faking the passenger list and faking the funerals.

One doesn't need to create such complicated scenarios to explain their theories when those who would have carried out 9/11 had already created such complicated scenarios 40 years earlier. All they did was change a few parts to the plan and carried it out in 2001.





[edit on 3-10-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Weedwacker, man I'm reading the "What Hit the Pentagon" and the Flight Path threads. Phew. Way too much technical info in there, lol.

Once you guys figure it out please post a layman's summary for us all.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Except that on this day, the passenger lists werent faked. Nor were the funerals.

You seem to forget the Operation Northwoods wasnt accepted by the NCA. In fact, refresh my memory...what happened to the author of it again?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Didn't the President who got pissed at the plan end up getting shot?

reply to post by mkross1983



Yep, by a disgruntled former Marine. But, if you want to discuss the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, thats another section of ATS.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Well, I was just pointing out what happened to the one who disagreed with it. Maybe it was a lesson so the next one wouldn't stop it. But anyway, that's all Off Topic so.

Weedwacker, your posts in the other threads are full of info I'm still going through 'em.

I can see what you are saying about how your view is humans had to be in control of the plane due to all the stuff involved in flying the aircraft and is something I'll have to look into more. There is a lot of technicals that I do not know so it could very well be that an aircraft couldn't be remotely flown due to the complexity of it but I don't know. It will require more researching on my part but for now I still think that it's reasonable to think that the Government could do it. Probably have to save further posts for another day though, lol, it's getting late.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Except that on this day, the passenger lists werent faked. Nor were the funerals.

You know this for a fact because you're psychic or because you want to believe the official version so badly that you will continue the lie?

Had Northwoods been carried out back in the 1960's, you would be sitting there spewing the same lies that the passenger lists were real and the funerals were real and that real terrorists from Cuba carried out terrorist acts on us, alllllll up until the documents got declassified. Then you would look like the fool that you do now.

Remember that both Operation Northwoods and 9/11 both had the exact same objectives:

1.) Attack ourselves
2.) Blame it on another country
3.) Go to war based on manufactured evidence

Don't forget to check out the definition of "denial disorder" in my signature.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You seriously think the passenger lists were faked?

Hate to break it to you, but that is a serious denial of the facts on your part.

Nevermind, I'm not a mod.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by mkross1983]

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


Great post!
Ill add this, note this was rleased Sept. 11 1970 ironic huh? .www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

books.nap.edu...

nasa remote test crashes

www.youtube.com...
www.nasa.gov...

www.prisonplanet.com...

www.sysplan.com...

herley-msi.com...
/portable-fts/

www.tecom-ind.com...

www.virtualacquisitionshowcase.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

www.wv-comm.com...

www.rense.com...

www.phoenixair.com...

www.tfcbooks.com...





[edit on 3-10-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 4-10-2009 by lycopersicum]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Remember that both Operation Northwoods and 9/11 both had the exact same objectives:

1.) Attack ourselves
2.) Blame it on another country
3.) Go to war based on manufactured evidence

Don't forget the "manufactured evidence" part. Your "facts" could have been manufactured. We won't know for sure until a new investigation.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, of course I read yours first, so...

Can you clarify something for me?

1) are you stating that there are no "Remotely Piloted Aircraft" or "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles"?

OR

2) are you criticizing the individual writing the story because of their lack of knowledge of how RPAs and UAVs work?

I'm going with you picking #2

EDIT: I'm sure someone's posted this, but I find the WHOLE subject fascinating.

www.remotepilot.com...

If you scroll down it states that the only remote piloting that is a no-no is troop transport for the reason that people would not want a plane with no pilot, but that if astronauts are fine with it perhaps some troops would be.

Personally, I would not fly in a plane without a pilot. I know BMW can make a car that will parallel park for you and I find that, frankly, off-putting.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

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

Yes, remote control planes are perfectly evil! Still, and I am not saying that they did put RC stuff in a Boeing commercial craft, because I don't believe they did, but...for the sake of argument the military drones are not always remotely controlled by people and are controlled by self-correcting computer systems so they do not face the same problems that I have with an RC plane.

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 agree that the argument is a bit shifty. Did you notice I agreed with you on something?

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.

Yep, I have ruled on COD but when I got a real gun I was like: this sucks! I suck!

Still, the computer plays NPCs really well...








[edit on 4-10-2009 by A Fortiori]