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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The level of your paranoia about the government (or ignorance of the facts, whichever you prefer) is amazing.

To honestly believe the flights did not exist.....




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


There are ample sources to show the history of the flights' existence PRIOR to September 11, 2001.


There is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics....of course, with enough 'paranoia' you will assert that ALLof the data has been manipulated since 9/11....that is kinda sorta the very definiton of 'paranoia'...sane people will never win against their 'view' of the world....



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Tell me about it....and it just seems to be getting worse on here. Next thing you know, it will be stated that it was fighters from the space battleship Yamato that attacked us that day.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
My Lord people, this is no secret. How many documentaries have to be made with actual footage before you believe that aircraft can be remotely operated?? Watch Loose Change for Christ's sake...


[edit on 4-10-2009 by UndergroundMilitia]



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



...space battleship Yamato...


Well. Maybe I am one of the few who can appreciate that reference!!


For just moment, to stray off-topic...when I see a reference to Star Trek I get excited!

In StarTrek lore, the USS Yamato was the sistership to the USS Enterprise-D, from Star Trek: The Next Generation television series ( and movies) that originated based on the Original Star Trek concept...both, btw, under the initial directon of Gene Roddenberry (deceased)....the "Great Bird of the Galaxy".........



I guess the best implication, here is obvious: Star Trek as an entertainment vehicle, and a very successful one at that, shows that when it comes to fiction, "anything is possible" as long as you have an audience that....'believes'.....!!!!!!!


Back to the Star Trek analogy.......

That show presented a lot of advanced technology....not that there's anything wrong with that!!!


HOWEVER.....the Star Trek technology is stilll SCIENCE FICTION!, for the most part...although there are a few points of modern cross-over....BECAUSE of the forward-thinking nature of Star Trek----still, MOST of these 'remotecontrol' and 'Electronically Hijacked' fantasies fall well within the realm of....POTENTIAL. But, NOT reality....especially back in 2001.

There are still a lot of "bugs" that need to be worked out of any possibility of thesae systems, as "described".






[edit on 4 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by UndergroundMilitia
 



Watch Loose Change for Christ's sake...


Yes!

Turn off, or just dis-engage your brain...no, just dis-engage your higher functions....and pop some popcorn, and watch that stupid show!!

OH! BTW, WHICH version of Loose Change do you recommend???

The one FIRST put out??? Or, the altered version....edited once they learned more (trying deperately to cover their butts.. and make up for the factual errors in the FIRST version).

YOU decide.



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by UndergroundMilitia
 



Watch Loose Change for Christ's sake...


Yes!

Turn off, or just dis-engage your brain...no, just dis-engage your higher functions....and pop some popcorn, and watch that stupid show!!

OH! BTW, WHICH version of Loose Change do you recommend???

The one FIRST put out??? Or, the altered version....edited once they learned more (trying deperately to cover their butts.. and make up for the factual errors in the FIRST version).

YOU decide.


How about the one that shows the "actual footage"...



posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012
 


What a load of nonsense.

I've been reading ATS for (mostly) entertainment for some time now, but never bothered to register because I really didn't feel I had much to contribute on the topics I've perused here.

In this case though -- the level of BS was just too much to stomach.

I'm an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) with type-ratings in a half-dozen different large jet aircraft. I'm also a certified A&P (airframe and powerplant) mechanic. I've flown everything from single-engine, piston powered puddle jumpers through most of Boeing's 7-series offerings.

The claims in this post are so out of touch with reality, they're hardly worth addressing.

Having flown and done HANDS ON work on a variety of commercial airliners, I can unequivocally state that there are NO communications systems (e.g., transponders or any other type) that are interconnected to the flight control systems that allow the aircraft to be controlled from the ground.

Have such systems existed and are they still around? Absolutely. They've been used for almost 60 years on drones and UAV's flown over the years.

It's absurd to accept this kind of claim without some strong evidence. To install and maintain these alleged systems without public disclosure would require the unwavering complicity of tens-of-thousands of airline mechanics and electronics technicians... not to mention the pilots, their unions, and countless ground-based command and control personnel who would have to fly these aircraft once the mythical system took over. Oh, and let's not forget the thousands of people who would have had to be in on the engineering design and implementation.

The story described here CLEARLY comes from folks who have no working knowledge of how even simple systems like an ATC transponder work. This belongs on the rubbish heap.

[edit on 7-10-2009 by mkultra007]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
P.S. Since the first claim the OP made in this thread is:

"Planes of any size can be hijacked using electronics."

I challenge you to show me how this is possible. The vast majority of light, civil-aviation aircraft have no automatic flight capability at all. To the contrary, they're flown by strictly mechanical controls between the pilot and control surfaces: gears, bell-cranks, chains, cables and push-pull tubes.

Simply put, even if remote control was possible from the ground, there are no physical devices onboard these aircraft to respond to any command. There's no auto-pilot. There are no non-pilot controlled actuators. There is no device capable of providing the telemetry needed to guide the aircraft from the ground.

Heck, if you don't believe me... just drop in on any flying club in the U.S. and talk to any pilot, flight instructor, mechanic or student there. Either there's an all-encompassing conspiracy between all of these elements... nationwide... or the OP's claims here are unsubstantiated BS.

[edit on 8-10-2009 by mkultra007]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by mkultra007]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by mkultra007]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mkultra007
 



Having flown and done HANDS ON work on a variety of commercial airliners, I can unequivocally state that there are NO communications systems (e.g., transponders or any other type) that are interconnected to the flight control systems that allow the aircraft to be controlled from the ground.


Sorry to disappoint you but, there is.




The FAA announced on August 24, 2000 - just 13 months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks - that the WAAS signal was available pending final approval by the FAA. Horizontal and vertical positional data accurate to between one to three meters and sufficient for Category I precision aircraft runway approaches, was now available throughout the contiguous United States.[4][5] Normal GPS service only provides placement accuracy to within 100 meters. Conventional en route aviation navigation beacon signals were only able to provide placement information accurate to within one mile.[6] Raytheon's director of satellite navigation systems even reported that rescue personnel utilized the newly activated WAAS signal, in order to precisely survey the Ground Zero site following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Achieved Systems Accuracy

During numerous FAA, U.S. Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) sponsored runway approach and touchdown test flights between 1994 and 2002, involving augmented GPS positional signals and the auto-land systems of Boeing 757, 767 and other Boeing 700 series aircraft, horizontal and vertical positional accuracies of just several meters or less were routinely achieved. The four aircraft used to carry out the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were also Boeing 757-200 and 767-200 model aircraft. Runways of major U.S. airports like JFK International, Chicago-O'Hare International and Los Angeles International are between 150 and 200 feet wide.[24][25][26] The WTC towers were each 208 feet wide.[27]

During October of 1994 at NASA's Crows Landing Flight Facility in California, 110 autopilot approaches and touchdowns of a United Airlines Boeing 737 aircraft facilitated by augmented GPS positional signals, were successfully conducted, with "accuracies on the order of a few centimeters" being consistently achieved

Comparable Method Patent

On October 9, 2001, Cubic Defense Systems, Inc. applied for a U.S. patent for a system that removes control of an aircraft from its pilot and utilizes an aircraft's auto-pilot system to implement an uninterruptable pre-programmed auto-pilot flight plan in order to navigate an aircraft to a given destination during an emergency. This would be accomplished through the use of electronic or mechanical relays, that become activated by pilot operation of an aircraft hijack notification system. Surprisingly to some, none of the four aircraft destroyed on September 11, 2001 are known to have entered unique transponder hijack notification codes, suggesting either modified function or insufficient activation time. One optional feature of the Cubic system is termination of an aircraft's ability to communicate. In two cases, hijacker communications reportedly aimed at passengers on-board American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 93 on September 11, 2001 were heard instead by air traffic controllers, suggesting modified communication functions. The Cubic patent also references Honeywell's 1995 augmented GPS flight navigation research and development, apparently as a signal navigation aid. The system also envisions the use of new aircraft flight instructions transmitted by a remote sender, that would override aircraft functions already underway and direct an aircraft auto-pilot system to navigate an aircraft to a predetermined destination.[39] A data link interface between an aircraft Flight Management System (FMS) and the Management Unit for the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), was developed during the early 1990s. This communication system allows for the update an aircraft FMS in mid-flight.[40] An aircraft auto-pilot system is part of the FMS.

Unreliable Evidence

Because the Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) for American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 were not recovered, details regarding the operation of each aircraft are not known. The FDRs for American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93 were recovered and indicate pilot control of each aircraft. However, the FDR readout file for American Airlines flight 77 was completed four hours and fifteen minutes before the said FDR was recovered, suggesting false or altered FDR information.[41] And the FDRs for American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93 are virtually the only ones during the previous 20 years of major National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) U.S. aviation mishap investigations, for which unique inventory control serial numbers were not published.[42] Such serial numbers are required to facilitate FDR data readouts.[43] In fact the NTSB possesses no records pertaining to the positive identification of the FDRs for American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93.


waronyou.com...



Complete Remote Airliner
Control Before 9-11


www.rense.com...



757-300 Background

The Flight Deck

Several flight deck improvements have been made on both the 757-300 and the 757-200. The Pegasus flight management computer (FMC) and an enhanced engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) are now standard on both 757 models. With the Pegasus FMC, operators can choose optional software that enables elements of the future air navigation system (FANS). FANS functions provide operators with the ability to use advanced systems, such as global positioning system (GPS) sensors and satellite communications (SATCOM), to take full advantage of new communication, navigation and air traffic management systems for more efficient routing and decreased trans-oceanic traffic separation.


www.boeing.com...





It's absurd to accept this kind of claim without some strong evidence.


The evidence is here! The research has been done for you just read it. It took me one search on Google to find this, why couldn’t you have done the same, instead of a kneejerk response of negativity.


To install and maintain these alleged systems without public disclosure would require the unwavering complicity of tens-of-thousands of airline


Come on, we are only talking about four Boeing aircraft used on 911.
We are talking about a few men in our military installing and operating the remote- control technologies. We are talking about 757 and 767 used by our military and owned by our military, we are not talking about “all commercial aircraft”.


Oh, and let's not forget the thousands of people who would have had to be in on the engineering design and implementation.


You do not know how many people designed or engineered this technology or how may people it took to install this equipment on those four airplanes, you are only assuming, nothing more.


The story described here CLEARLY comes from folks who have no working knowledge of how even simple systems like an ATC transponder work. This belongs on the rubbish heap.

I have no idea what your motives are on this topic but, it is clear to me for someone who thinks he know everything about aviation and flying airplanes, I find it unusual that you are not aware of these technologies and this is old technology now.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Oh dear, oh dear. You can not be MORE wrong. Here, you said it best, yourself:


I have no idea what your motives are on this topic but, it is clear to me for someone who thinks he know everything about aviation and flying airplanes, I find it unusual that you are not aware of these technologies and this is old technology now.


You have demonstrated, by linking and showing what you THINK are supporting your claims and the OP's, that you clearly have no idea about, nor comprehension of, the material you cited.


I am very convinced about mkultra007's veracity----he talks like a pilot, it is clear to me in just those two posts.

It is sad, indeed, when laypeople try to interpret something they read after a quick "Google" search, and then act as if they understand it....



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mkultra007
 


And how many kept the Manhattan Project a secret???



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkultra007
P.S. Since the first claim the OP made in this thread is:

"Planes of any size can be hijacked using electronics."

I challenge you to show me how this is possible. The vast majority of light, civil-aviation aircraft have no automatic flight capability at all. To the contrary, they're flown by strictly mechanical controls between the pilot and control surfaces: gears, bell-cranks, chains, cables and push-pull tubes.


Wrong!

Almost all aircraft have had some form of automatic flight capability for at least several decades. And don't tell me about gliders because technically they are not airplanes.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually impressme is correct and you are wrong!

Your knowledge of airplanes is mainstream and outdated at that


And whats with all that "I know everything so shut the hell up" attitude?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Almost all aircraft have had some form of automatic flight capability for at least several decades.


"Almost all aircraft"......

Nope. Wrong. Not sure where you think you found that information, but it certainly has misled you. Perhaps if you provided the source I could explain why it is so wrong.

In any event, the very essence of the OP is flawed, since equating an "automatic flilght ability" to the incredible leap of illogic to "remote control" is ridiculous.

It hinges on a deep, and telling lack of understanding of WHAT autoflight systems actually are, the extent of their various designs, how they work, what they can, and most importantly, CANNOT do....



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



And whats with all that "I know everything so shut the hell up" attitude?


Really? Because I bring facts, and point out flaws and errors, since I actually have the knowledge and expertise....you think that I bring that sort of "attitude"?

IF I were to be discussing a subject that YOU were very knowledgable about, and I was completely wrong, because I didn't fully understand the material, and reached incorrect conclusions based on my mistakes...YOU wouldn't feel a need to set the record straight?

I think when it's needed, we should participate and make sure the information is accurately interpreted.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



Almost all aircraft have had some form of automatic flight capability for at least several decades.


"Almost all aircraft"......

Nope. Wrong. Not sure where you think you found that information, but it certainly has misled you. Perhaps if you provided the source I could explain why it is so wrong.


Would you care to disprove me?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
In any event, the very essence of the OP is flawed, since equating an "automatic flilght ability" to the incredible leap of illogic to "remote control" is ridiculous.

It hinges on a deep, and telling lack of understanding of WHAT autoflight systems actually are, the extent of their various designs, how they work, what they can, and most importantly, CANNOT do....


I understand what your saying but you have to realise we are talking about specially designed *black budget* aircraft where anything is possible...duh!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


My task is not to "disprove" you, regarding your claim about "almost all aircraft" having autoflight capabilities. YOU made the claim, up to you to back it up.

AS TO the catch-all about "black budgets" and anything being possible???

Sheesh! You're trying to make this something it wasn't...or isn't.

Fantastic claims, with no basis in fact or plausibility.

Little bit like what happens in some Hollywood film scripts.....or Tom Clancy novels....



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


My task is not to "disprove" you, regarding your claim about "almost all aircraft" having autoflight capabilities. YOU made the claim, up to you to back it up.


The only recent addition to "modern flying" is the new GPS capabilities.

Everything else has existed for decades. Please don't make me give a full blown lecture because that would be very boring...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
AS TO the catch-all about "black budgets" and anything being possible???

Sheesh! You're trying to make this something it wasn't...or isn't.

Fantastic claims, with no basis in fact or plausibility.

Little bit like what happens in some Hollywood film scripts.....or Tom Clancy novels....


What exactly has no basis in fact? The fact that a black budget exists or that a remote control plane is unplausible?? Your comments at best are laughable!



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Here's the problem, as I see it.

When you say "almost all aircraft" I guess you mean to include only commercial passenger jets and business jets? BECAUSE, that is not how your phrase reads.

But, your misinformation is evident, in any regard, because you have taken what was linked regarding GPS, and the simple fact that there is ongoing design and testing to confirm the plausibility of relying on the GPS in lieu of the conventional ground-based systems that are currently in use.

That is ALL those articles are describing.

The FAA conducts extensive studies of this sort to confirm the reliability and safety of any new system, or method, or technology BEFORE writing legislation that approves their use in normal aviation operations.

Attacking me by claiming that what I contribute is "laughable" reflects very poorly on your credibility, not mine.

Because, I happen to know what I'm talking about.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join