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: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
There is nothing at all to support this claim, no evidence, nothing.

Over the years there have been many instances of pilots who have become incapacitated for various reasons - illness, injury, etc. - and who could no longer fly their planes. Many of these planes wound up crashing. If there were some system for taking control, then this would have been done, especially on passenger planes. It never happened.

I don't doubt that we have the technology to fly a plane remotely, since we do that all the time with the drones in Afghanistan and on our border with Mexico. I might even believe that there have been some passenger planes that were equipped to be flown remotely - in fact, I am sure of it. I saw a deliberate crash of a jetliner, an old airliner loaded with crash test dummies, then brought down remotely for testing. If they can do that, they can take over other planes as well.

But just because we *can* do something, doesn't mean anyone actually did it.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


I don't know if you saw my earlier posts or not but I admitted that most planes probably do not have this capability built in but that doesn't rule out the possibility of a FEW planes having it for a specific purpose.

As you already pointed out, it has been proven by that video you watched that it was possible back in the 80's. From that I infer that it is likely the technology could have been improved upon since then.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436


www.systron.com...

www.prisonplanet.com...



I see what you're getting at and I appreciate the info you posted. The second half of the Prison Planet article is interesting but the part about the gyroscope not so much.

en.wikipedia.org...

A Gyroscope alone wouldn't be enough to allow control of an aircraft but it could be part of a system to do so so it might be important still. The part about the military landing remotely 6 times overseas though is highly interesting and proves that it can be done not just as a once-off thing back in the 80's. Nice.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Modern UAVs can be programmed with their flight path, when and where to take pictures, loiter, and land without human input. I'm sure a larger aircraft COULD BE designed with this in mind, but the engineering to RC a 757 would be an enourmous undertaking, and IMHO, I don't think something like that would have been able to be kept secret, especially after 9/11, someone would have said something(Oh God, THATS why we were designing that!), course they could have just had all those engineers and techs killed, but anyways...

The military is working on remote controled fighters, so I don't think they would have a huge problem with a commercial jetliner. But remember these were normal jetliners that had been in service for a while (I'm assuming that part that they weren't new). So are you putting forth the theory that they desiged several airliners years in advance to have this capability?

IN SHORT::
Is it possiable: From an engineering standpoint, yes I think it is.
Is it plausaible? No, IMHO.
But this is a conspiracy website, and thats what conspiracy websites are for right? Thinking outside the box



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Great post!
Ill add this, note this was rleased Sept. 11 1970 ironc 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]


Excellent post, star for you. Lots of good information you compiled and I recommend that you all read and review them.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


Thanks!!
Thought, you, would like some of the info.

As, you, pointed out,The technology has been around for ages.
So there is absolutely no doubt,that it can be done.So we can lay the idea,that it cant be done to rest.

But we, still need to find more concrete evidence, that it was used on (9/11),my guess,is yes, it was used.By who?Duno.And I cant even speculate who "THEY "are anymore,to many key people are winding up in Siberia,in jail,accused of being a terrorist,found dead from suicide /murdered,or died on 9/11 .

But there are still people out there who can still lend credence, to the idea .I am sure you have heard of them.Because I know this is not your first RODEO LOL

Colonel Donn de Grand Pres
www.scribd.com...

Webster G. Tarpley
www.youtube.com...
video.google.com...#

Wife is bitching,hard core atm, so ill post more latter .

Kudos agin for the great post.

BBL . (be back later)



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
There is nothing at all to support this claim, no evidence, nothing.

Over the years there have been many instances of pilots who have become incapacitated for various reasons - illness, injury, etc. - and who could no longer fly their planes. Many of these planes wound up crashing. If there were some system for taking control, then this would have been done, especially on passenger planes. It never happened.


Right...just like nuclear tunnel boring machines don't exist because construction companies don't use them *sigh*

You among others don't seem to understand that some things are highly classified for a reason, or perhaps for multiple reasons! If they allowed all planes to be fitted with such technology then it wouldn't be much of a secret...



Originally posted by chiron613
I don't doubt that we have the technology to fly a plane remotely, since we do that all the time with the drones in Afghanistan and on our border with Mexico. I might even believe that there have been some passenger planes that were equipped to be flown remotely - in fact, I am sure of it. I saw a deliberate crash of a jetliner, an old airliner loaded with crash test dummies, then brought down remotely for testing. If they can do that, they can take over other planes as well.

But just because we *can* do something, doesn't mean anyone actually did it.


The most likely scenario is that empty, remote controlled passenger planes took off from an undisclosed location and rammed the twin towers.

People saw planes and they were indeed real; just not official flights! That would also explain the extra equipment hanging from the plane's fuselage...didn't anyone notice?

As for the pentagon attack, I am a bit baffled but in all likelyhood a decoy plane made a fly-over just before a smart missle struck.

The entire 9-11 incident was well planned out and very sinister in nature.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I like your thought process here, don't get me wrong I like it, but what happened to the people? This is what I am always left wondering when I think along these lines.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mkross1983
 


There were no people aboard the planes. Somehow the flight numbers and passenger lists were concocted with the faa's approval. I know it sounds far fetched but do you have a better explanation?



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by mkross1983
 


There were no people aboard the planes. Somehow the flight numbers and passenger lists were concocted with the faa's approval. I know it sounds far fetched but do you have a better explanation?


No, and I wasn't being critical I was just asking for your opinion.

Not saying you're wrong I'm just looking for info.

If the lists were faked how do they get all these people reporting they lost people they knew on the planes?

Just to clarify I don't believe the official story so I'm not trying to dismiss you or anything.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mkross1983
 


Well anything could be made up if certain people had the right motivation.

And besides I don't recall that many people claiming to have lost loved ones from being on the planes that crashed.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Yes, the ticket agents were manufactured, the gate agents were manufactured, the airline service crews were manufactured. The men and women in the ATC system were manufactured. People who knew exactly who boarded the aircraft that day, who knew exactly when those planes took off, who followed the aircraft on their radar screens......and watched as those planes disappeared from their scopes when they impacted.

All those people were manufactured....yeah, right.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


You are kidding right? You seriously think that all of the sudden the FAA said sure, use these flight numbers.



BTW each of those flights had been regular flights before 9/11/01.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Yes, the ticket agents were manufactured, the gate agents were manufactured, the airline service crews were manufactured. The men and women in the ATC system were manufactured. People who knew exactly who boarded the aircraft that day, who knew exactly when those planes took off, who followed the aircraft on their radar screens......and watched as those planes disappeared from their scopes when they impacted.

All those people were manufactured....yeah,right


Nobody knew anything about the flights because they didn't exist!

Do you honestly think some employee would go on tv/radio and say "hey what flight are they talking about? I don't recall loading their backage"

Most people don't give a flying # if the government, united/american airlines, the faa or anyone else is lying as long as they get their stupid paycheck and go home to watch the newest american idle episode...Think about it!

[edit on 4-10-2009 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Go back to the Clinton Presidential era. Several of his rivals or people he was having problems with, ended up on planes that flew into mountains for some unknown reason.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 


Or how they down a civilian airline just to kill 1 vocal truther.

It's absolutely sickening!



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


In your 'prisonplanet' article, the link to an email about the GlobalHawk fails.

Again, this is a prime example of stuff WRITTEN and POSTED on the Internet, but with NO supporting evidence, other than the most vague ideas....BECAUSE some technology exists, including airplanes designed FROM THE GROUND UP to be not only remote-controllable, but also to have autonomy....this is TWO differnt things, as relates to 9/11...and to imagine an already-built airplane (ACTUALLY, FOUR!!!!! of them!!!!) being somehow retro-fitted, even though they were not originally designed for this....well. It's ludicrous.

But, my focus is going to try to stay on the merits of what is in the OP, namely that article and its claims. They are laughable, because they are so wrong.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
IIRC, Germany sued Boeing a few years ago for leaving a secret back-door for remote control of its airplanes.

Given our present state of technology, it's a foregone conclusion that an airplane can be remotely controlled, and quite efficiently. Isn't this what essentially happens most of the time already in the cockpit? Instrument landings are what, exactly? The instruments "seeing" for the pilot, no?

Just take that to the next step, and you've got RC airplanes. And hey, the point of 911 RC was to home onto a certain spot, not to land properly--flying RC to a point is relative child's play.

Finally, there was an Israeli company run by a shady ex-Mossad type that had developed and was peddling this tech before 9/11; sorry, no linkies, it's been a while since I was into 9/11.

Edit to add: we landed men on the moon by RC using 1969 tech and primitive computers; of course we had the ability to RC a commercial jet in 2001. Really, where's the debate on this? I'd be shocked it we didn't.

Anyway, to debate RC control of airplanes seems rather pointless--the OP is right, it's a foregone conclusion that it is possible, and has been for many years. Nobody's going to offer you the owner's manual for it, though.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by gottago]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 



Edit to add: we landed men on the moon by RC using 1969 tech and primitive computers


Could NOT be more incorrect if you tried!!!!!!

Fail! Next?


....of course we had the ability to RC a commercial jet in 2001. Really, where's the debate on this? I'd be shocked it we didn't.


Well, I am shocked that people believe this dreck.

As has been pointed out, by others....the MOST SIMPLE way for any pilot to defeat these "take-over" fantasies is just to remove the electrical power.

No need even to 'hunt' for a particular circuit breaker....since if a "stealth' system might be wired into a circuit, and not labeled....just DE-POWER the complete Bus!!!!

For those who don't know what a 'bus' is...it is an electrical "common" point, where all components are wired to, through of course the C/Bs,for electrical energy distribution.

IT IS A 'distribution' "BUS".

See yet?

Each 'bus' must be supplied its electricity...when in flight, this comes from (on a two-engined airplane) THREE possible sources.

Of course, EACH engine runs a generator, via an accessory gearbox arrangement of some sort....the Generator produces AC power, which is controlled to come out as 115/120 VAC. This requires the generator to be at a certain speed...and that is the extra-credit for anyone who can explain that process, using proper terms....because I doubt you'll find it on the Internet!).

But, I said there were THREE possible electrical sources! Yes, there is also the APU (Auxiliarry Power Unit) which is basically a small jet engine, because it burns the same fuel (Jet-A) as the main engines...but it ALSO has a generator attached to it.

EACH of the electrical outputs of these THREE sources can be routed any way the pilot selects....usually it is automatic, but the pilots have complete control over the distribution patterns. Via switches in the cockpit.

NORMALLY, swithing is done by internal sensors, and take the place of the old days, when a HUMAN "Third Officer" was required to monitor and assist...NOW, this is more automated.

HOWEVER....there is NOTHING that a pilot does not know about his airplane, and its systems.

IF FORCED to, a pilot can ALWAYS de-power everything (IF in the incredible scenario posited here, that somehow there was this fantastic "take-over" electronically....)...then by 'de-powering' down to the stand-by system....which is JUST the aircraft batteries....TWO (or ONE)28VDC batterie(s) in series (or singly) and an 'inverter' to provide AC power to basic instruments that require AC....THAT is how REAL airplanes are designed, and how pilots are trained, and what we know and what we learn and WHAT those who attempt to tell you otherwise HAVE NO IDEA what they're talking about....

THIS IS THE basic amount of knowledge I can try to convey online.

UNLESS you are able to learn about flying, and becoming a pilot, and work through all of the complexities of the various airplanes, as you learn moe and more....then you may not understand what I am saying, here.

BECAUSE....over thirty years ago, when I was just flying small airplanes, like Cessnas and Beechcraft and Pipers....this would have seemed WAY above my head, too.

However....now, it is second nature to me....it IS my professional expertise.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join