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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


I agree that you know a fair amount weedwhacker, but have you considered the possibility that the military was using cutting edge technology to carry this out? Surely you know that they don't require FAA studies in order to test drive their stuff. And what better day to do so then a day of "War Games", where it could be expected that cutting edge technologies might be 'tried out'.




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


The military, even WITH this imagined "cutting edge" technology would have already adapted to other uses, to include even more sophisticated UAVs, and the like. The ultimate goal would be a completely pilot-less fighter, since the Human body is the weak link in that airborne system.

But, I have seen nothing that resembles this sort of successful tech...oh, people will point to this or that that's currently declassified, and note how it had been around for a decade or so before being made public...and they'll say "See!"

Still, the future need for ever-more-sophisticated fighters seems less likely, since there's no USSR anymore (well, China is a problem, but they'd be biting the hand that feeds them if they riled us up...perhaps another thread...)


The main reasons why this scenario is not plausible are the incredible complexities and breakthroughs that would have to have been developed, but completely not seen anywhere else. Not even a hint, a leak....nothing.

It's difficult enough to have pulled this off with ONE airplane....but FOUR? One would have been sufficient. Four (if this WERE as suggested) would just be asking for trouble, and increase the possiblity of "discovery".

Someone compared keeping the secret of the "Manhattan Project" to an 'operation' such as this...well, ummm....WAY different circumstances. WWII, and all that...common enemy, War Effort, loose lips sink ships, you know the deal.


The autopilots are designed with certain software that prevents a lot of what was seen, in the ways the airplanes behaved. ONLY a Human, in the cockpit, operating all of the controls (and not just the airlerons and elevators...ALL of the mode control selections that were made)....AND they showed a level of bare minimum knowledge and understanding...very basic.

Certainly, IF there were "remote pilots" they'd have a much better grasp of the systems, and how to use them, right?

Since we only have surviving Flight Recorders from two airplanes, we must infer from the other two. HOWEVER, we do have the existing ATC tapes --- radar data --- all to point to a timeline that makes perfect sense.

OF an Air Piracy event, co-ordinated to occur nearly simultaneously for maximum effect.

Subsequent plots to cause other air disasters, such as blowing up as many as a half-dozen Trans-Atlantic or Trans-Pacific passenger jets have come to light. The threat of such events is still real. Fortunately, the situation for U.S. Airlines and the unlikelihood of any more hijackings is less of a worry, now, for various reasons I won't go into here.

Can't say the same for every OTHER operator of passenger jets in the World, though....



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I am not rellying on any articles to persuade you about what I already know! You seem to be fixated on sources, as though what I am talking about is something revolutionary new...guess what...IT ISN'T!!!

I said that almost all planes have been fitted with SOME auto-pilot features for at least several decades. These CAN, but not necessarilly, include the following controls: heading, speed, attitude, altitude, nav/gps hold, localiser/glidescope, etc. Yes smaller planes have fewer options available and normally NO AUTO-LAND but they are still very usefull. How you came up with me saying that "only commercial planes and jets have AP" is really baffling the # out of me


Further what you and I know about commercially available airplanes is almost immatterial BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT *BLACK BUDGET* PLANES developed by the military-industrial complex for covert operations, such as OPERATION NORTHWOODS! Few people know what these airplanes look like or how they fly. Just because CNN, FOX, NBC, USA TODAY, NY TIMES, LA TIMES, etc doesn't report them DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT EXIST! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



You are incredibly wrong.



I said that almost all planes have been fitted with SOME auto-pilot features for at least several decades.


No! There are far, far more airplanes out there, all sizes and makes and types WITHOUT any sort of autopilot, I do not understand where you get this other idea of "almost all". It just ain't true.

You said "several decades"...even in the 1980s an autopilot, even IF it was offered as an option, was expensive, not only in initial cost, but mainenance and the weight penalty, as it ate into the useful load.

But other than a few rudimentary "wing levelers" or some such on a Cessna or Piper or Beech, an autopilot on a General Aviation airplane (the VAST, majority of airplanes out there) was, and still is, very rare.



These CAN, but not necessarilly, include the following controls: heading, speed, attitude, altitude, nav/gps hold, localiser/glidescope, etc. Yes smaller planes have fewer options available and normally NO AUTO-LAND but they are still very usefull.


NOW it sounds like you're quoting from some source, and not speaking from experience and real-world knowledge. Please expalin where you heard these things.

In order to control SPEED (other than via pitch, in climb or descent) you must have some sort of autothrottle...and trust me, THAT is even more rare, even in older passenger jets....

Even your terminology there is wrong..."nav/gps hold", for instance. "track" is a more correct term...headings can be "held", or "selected"...depends on the autopilot. (Heading "hold" simply looks at the heading when that feature is chosen, then holds it. "Heading select" uses the concept of a heading "bug" which pilot selects, and autopilot follows. But, that is enough lesson for now...)



How you came up with me saying that "only commercial planes and jets have AP" is really baffling the # out of me.



Please provide the quote from me, stating that. Obviously, it is a comprehension problem because I know better than to state that implicitly. Nice try, though, at mischaracterizing what I write.




Further what you and I know about commercially available airplanes is almost immatterial BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT *BLACK BUDGET* PLANES developed by the military-industrial complex for covert operations, such as OPERATION NORTHWOODS! Few people know what these airplanes look like or how they fly. Just because CNN, FOX, NBC, USA TODAY, NY TIMES, LA TIMES, etc doesn't report them DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT EXIST! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


OK, now it's just gone off the rails, here.

First, the claim was normal commercial jets, I.E. the B757/767, were "modified"...NOW it's some magically secret airplane that is "covert"...ones that, BTW, would be extremely valuable...

Oh, and the Operation Northwoods reference, is....priceless!!!!!

Has no bearing, other than it vaguely resembles a "ruse" that was once cooked up to instigate an International incident with Cuba...a "ruse" that did NOT invlove the mass slaying of thousands of American citizens. People who try to use that scenario to compare with 9/11 are simply overly paranoid, and sometimes delusional. (I refer to the websites, and the authors of those sites, NOT to any ATS member, of course.)



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 



You are incredibly wrong.


INCREDIBLY wrong?



Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK, now it's just gone off the rails, here.

First, the claim was normal commercial jets, I.E. the B757/767, were "modified"...NOW it's some magically secret airplane that is "covert"...ones that, BTW, would be extremely valuable...


Oh, I see your anology...

A vastly modified B767 plane does not qualify as secret/covert...funny though that it does qualify for others! Please tell me and everyone else who think that 9-11 was an inside job what you make of this picture. Pay special attention to what is circled. Could it possibly be some kind of remote control pod?





Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and the Operation Northwoods reference, is....priceless!!!!!

Has no bearing, other than it vaguely resembles a "ruse" that was once cooked up to instigate an International incident with Cuba...a "ruse" that did NOT invlove the mass slaying of thousands of American citizens. People who try to use that scenario to compare with 9/11 are simply overly paranoid, and sometimes delusional. (I refer to the websites, and the authors of those sites, NOT to any ATS member, of course.)


Right! I was certain you would give me that bs...

We give you so much evidence, yet you toss it out of the window...


[edit on 8-10-2009 by EarthCitizen07]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



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.


You are sadly wrong, Your flight simulator skills and what little knowledge of aviation you have learned from your flight simulator dose not impress me or anyone else.

I posted facts not opinions I am sorry that the truth is disturbing to you and you have demonstrated that very well. Perhaps if you read real airplane Manuals instead of how to flightsim books you might learn something.

Your post to me was a personal attack and nothing more and you have demonstrated that very clearly. If you have proof that the information I posted to mkultra007 is false then, you should have demonstrated it with creditable sources to back your claim, however you fail to do so tells me that I am correct and the information that I have posted is correct.


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....


It is sad indeed, when people who are not trained in aviation sadly prove wannabe pilots wrong. I didn’t know this thread was for wannabe pilots only and that people interested in this topic was not allowed to post thank you for letting us know.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x
 


The military, even WITH this imagined "cutting edge" technology would have already adapted to other uses, to include even more sophisticated UAVs, and the like. The ultimate goal would be a completely pilot-less fighter, since the Human body is the weak link in that airborne system.


We are at war. The US military would absolutely not give away classified warfighter performance technologies to the news media, much less Top Secret NOFORN. Nuh-uh. Not happening.

The Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence has been at work for years developing "AI" for the purpose of unmanned weapons systems. They have cognitive robots. In fact, do you know they have a robot that gets impatient and will cut in line? Do you absolutely not think that if they have already designed line breaking robots then they have the ability to have unmanned aircraft capable of doing what apparently any joe off the street can do if shoved in front of a flight simulator for a few hours?


But, I have seen nothing that resembles this sort of successful tech...oh, people will point to this or that that's currently declassified, and note how it had been around for a decade or so before being made public...and they'll say "See!" Still, the future need for ever-more-sophisticated fighters seems less likely, since there's no USSR anymore (well, China is a problem, but they'd be biting the hand that feeds them if they riled us up...perhaps another thread...)


Any politician and military expert with an ounce of hindsight will tell you that the world has become a less safe place since the fall of the Soviet Union. Former Soviet Scientists were on high demand post fall, and nuclear technology proliferation spread across the globe to both rogue states and organized crime syndicates.


The main reasons why this scenario is not plausible are the incredible complexities and breakthroughs that would have to have been developed, but completely not seen anywhere else. Not even a hint, a leak....nothing.


Prison is a huge deterrent to leaking Top Secret information, I've found.



It's difficult enough to have pulled this off with ONE airplane....but FOUR? One would have been sufficient. Four (if this WERE as suggested) would just be asking for trouble, and increase the possiblity of "discovery".


You see, while I believe they have the technology it serves no purpose that they should have to use it. There are people out there that just, darn it all, hate us for our freedoms. I don't think these were unmanned aircraft at all. I think a bunch of jihadists flew planes into buildings. However, I believe had this been an undesirable event it would not have happened at all.


Someone compared keeping the secret of the "Manhattan Project" to an 'operation' such as this...well, ummm....WAY different circumstances. WWII, and all that...common enemy, War Effort, loose lips sink ships, you know the deal.


But, there have been "insiders" that supposedly talked, but they also "died". Now, that's just speculative that they died because they actually knew something, but I'm just stating that if you wanted to hear a leak...there were supposed leaks.


The autopilots are designed with certain software that prevents a lot of what was seen, in the ways the airplanes behaved. ONLY a Human, in the cockpit, operating all of the controls (and not just the airlerons and elevators...ALL of the mode control selections that were made)....AND they showed a level of bare minimum knowledge and understanding...very basic.


I think I missed someone saying it was put on autopilot. Did they think the real pilots parachuted out.



Certainly, IF there were "remote pilots" they'd have a much better grasp of the systems, and how to use them, right?


If they did use remote pilots it would depend upon whether it was a human remotely piloting it or cognitive intelligence.


Since we only have surviving Flight Recorders from two airplanes, we must infer from the other two. HOWEVER, we do have the existing ATC tapes --- radar data --- all to point to a timeline that makes perfect sense.


Perfect sense for people, as opposed to remote control? (Serious question, I missed something)



Subsequent plots to cause other air disasters, such as blowing up as many as a half-dozen Trans-Atlantic or Trans-Pacific passenger jets have come to light. The threat of such events is still real. Fortunately, the situation for U.S. Airlines and the unlikelihood of any more hijackings is less of a worry, now, for various reasons I won't go into here.


Not with STA/GTA missiles. Not to be morbid...

Anyway...I still go back to the fact that they have never been able to pull off a stunt even remotely close to this in Israel, whom they hate so much that they are blowing up our buildings to prove how much they hate Israel.

It makes me think that we were somehow okay with it, as opposed to the Israelis who were not at all okay with someone blowing up their major buildings. Jets fly into our building housing the JCS--oops section under renovation, and in Israel teenagers walk bombs into buses or McDonalds. That's very weird to me. Again, just saying...

[edit on 8-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

I wouldnt worry to much about what weed wacko thinks.

We have been using UAV drones for a long time ,THAT is not a matter of opinion its a matter of FACT, no matter what weed wacko thinks .we have been using them regularly ,we even used them in veitnam.

www.draganfly.com...

www.unmannedaircraft.org...

www.acig.org...

www.vectorsite.net...


www.fas.org...

UAV fighters
www.g2mil.com...

defense-update.com...

www.f-16.net...

www.popularmechanics.com...




[edit on 8-10-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK, now it's just gone off the rails, here.

First, the claim was normal commercial jets, I.E. the B757/767, were "modified"...NOW it's some magically secret airplane that is "covert"...ones that, BTW, would be extremely valuable...


Oh, I see your anology...

A vastly modified B767 plane does not qualify as secret/covert...funny though that it does qualify for others! Please tell me and everyone else who think that 9-11 was an inside job what you make of this picture. Pay special attention to what is circled. Could it possibly be some kind of remote control pod?




You really do not know what you're looking at, there???

If not, and you believe what whoever posted those pictures originally, and you didn't bother to look at other airplanes to compare, then you aren't doing research!!!

(Hint...fairings. ALL Boeing 767s have them. You see, the main gear retract there. There are very large gear doors, which open, the gear retracts, then they close. The entire section is faired to provide a smooth transition where the fuselage and the wing are joined.







Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, and the Operation Northwoods reference, is....priceless!!!!!

Has no bearing, other than it vaguely resembles a "ruse" that was once cooked up to instigate an International incident with Cuba...



Right! I was certain you would give me that bs...

We give you so much evidence, yet you toss it out of the window...


"EVIDENCE"??? "Northwoods"???



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Tell me, and us as well, then ---- what are YOUR qualifications???

Because, from the way you write, would seem that YOU are the one who knows a lot more about a desktop flight simulator program than I, who actually HAS a license and ratings and over thirty years flying AND 20,000 real hours, not made-up simulator hours from Microsoft or whatever.


You are sadly wrong, Your flight simulator skills and what little knowledge of aviation you have learned from your flight simulator dose not impress me or anyone else.


You don't know me, accuse me of attack, and instead you say that???


I posted facts not opinions I am sorry that the truth is disturbing to you and you have demonstrated that very well. Perhaps if you read real airplane Manuals instead of how to flightsim books you might learn something.


You posted facts, without understanding what they really meant.


Your post to me was a personal attack...


No, it was not. It was the truth, not an attack.

You found information on the Web, and since I truly doubt you're a pilot, you completely misunderstood what it was describing. I pointed that out.

Of course, NOW you come in and attack ME??? Hypocritical.


...you should have demonstrated it with creditable sources to back your claim, however you fail to do so tells me that I am correct and the information that I have posted is correct.


No, doesn't work like that.

BECAUSE I didn't care to take another hour or so of my time and try to parse out your post to show your errors does NOT automatically make the post or yours "correct"!! Not logical.




It is sad indeed, when people who are not trained in aviation sadly prove wannabe pilots wrong.


Wait! So you ARE a 'wannabe pilot'???

Again, we are interested to hear YOUR crededentials. So far, I have not seen a phrase that leads be to believe you understand flying at all.

If you could just speak like a pilot, instead of like a layperson??

We can tell.

Ask some of the others who post on ATS. We know.





[edit on 9 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


UAVs.

Drones.

Specifically built for a purpose, NOT "re-fitted" Boeing 757s and 767s!!!!

Oh, and thanks for butchering my username, real cute. And adult.

Here's a challenge: Why not go down to your local airport, LARGE airport, and ask any airline pilots you see about the plausability of this thread's OP.

Go ahead...make our day!


Please, video it, if you can...should be fun.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker

Believe have located the remote autopilot these clowns are squawking
about

en.wikipedia.org...:Airplane_screenshot_Haggerty_Nielsen.jpg



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No need to interview anyone LOL. It is called WAAS. DOD/DOT/FAA's global remote control system.
Seamless Aviation: FAA's Wide Area Augmentation System.It was built for Boeing 727, 737, 757, an Aerocommander 680E and others easy retro with existing equipment on the air crafts at the time.completed in 2000.And it said it was easy to hack LOL.

April 1995 GPS world magazine did an 8 page article on it ill locate and post it.President Clinton administration.came up with it in 1995.

This is a quote from the article .

["In one of the trials, a Boeing 737 was modified for remote control by the mere addition of three antennas (only two required for GPS-a third for two nearby temporary beacons for precision landing), and two personal computer cards designed to interface with Boeing's Flight Control System (FCS)."]

edit to add. ill post more latter going out for dinner with the wife BBL.

waas.stanford.edu...




[edit on 9-10-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
If planes really hit the twin towers on Sept. 11, then this might be plausible,
but they didn't!

This theory is another red herring.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I'll try to keep this short, this time.



Originally posted by impressme
Sorry to disappoint you but, there is.


His response to mkultra007:

The first quoted text discusses the possibility of using GPS as either a replacement, or in addition to, existing VHF-based ILS (or other precision Approach Systems) for commercial airplanes in the US.




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.



There is a lot of more info, MOST of it factual, amd MOST of it completely unrelated to the difficulties in applying this technology to airplanes at HIGH SPEEDS (as seen on 9/11) with the same sort of accuracy.

It is designed, as stated, for LANDING speeds...very different turn rates and pitch change rates resulting in vertical velocity changes, when you're talking about the landing configurations versus HIGH SPEEDS!

To save time, I'm going to skip...because it's so big, i keep running afoul of the maximum posting lengths, and I've lost two previous posts already.





Surprisingly to some, none of the four aircraft destroyed on September 11, 2001 are known to have entered unique transponder hijack notification codes...


This is irrelevant, ask any airline pilot why...since you won't believe me...an airline pilot...


But THIS ONE?!? Shows they have NO IDEA what they're talking about....



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.


Unbelievably stupid! Ask those pilots you meet how many times they, or one of their colleagues, has accidentally made a PA on the ATC frequency...heck! Ask some Air Traffic Controllers!! Happens all the time...and in the old days, the guy who did it usually bought a round of beers.....

The rest? I'll save that for later......




[edit on 9 October 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 



I wouldnt worry to much about what weed wacko thinks.



That is why I just put him on my ignore list. I find it comfortable to talk to posters who can look at both sides of the 911 issues and talk to each other without acting like some know it all. They are never wrong ever, I don’t care to waste my time on a poster who thinks they are an authority on everything about 911, and if we disagree with them they cannot behave as adults as they have demonstrated this repeatedly by constant ridiculing and side stepping the real topics. I presented hard-core facts with creditable sources and the poster personally attacks me! He didn’t even discuss my evidences, he didn’t even try to disprove any of it, that says a lot.






[edit on 9-10-2009 by impressme]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No need to interview anyone LOL. It is called WAAS. DOD/DOT/FAA's global remote control system.


No, it isn't. You have no clue abouy what you're reading. WAAS was developed for more precise GPS navigation. It has nothing at all to do with remote control.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
Seamless Aviation: FAA's Wide Area Augmentation System.It was built for Boeing 727, 737, 757, an Aerocommander 680E and others easy retro with existing equipment on the air crafts at the time.completed in 2000.And it said it was easy to hack LOL.


Wrong again. It was developed for ALL aircraft with the appropriate certified equipment on a certified approach.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
April 1995 GPS world magazine did an 8 page article on it ill locate and post it.President Clinton administration.came up with it in 1995.

This is a quote from the article .

["In one of the trials, a Boeing 737 was modified for remote control by the mere addition of three antennas (only two required for GPS-a third for two nearby temporary beacons for precision landing), and two personal computer cards designed to interface with Boeing's Flight Control System (FCS)."]


This has nothing to do with remote control. It merely added an interface between the GPS Receiver and the Auto-Pilot allowing coupled navigation and/or a coupled approach.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
edit to add. ill post more latter going out for dinner with the wife BBL.


I hope you know more about food than this subject or you might eat something poisonous. Don't bother to post more as you have no clue what you are even reading, let along trying to analyze it to discuss it.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
waas.stanford.edu...


This is the *only* thing in your entire post that's correct.

This thread should have been closed after weedwhacker's first post. All that has ensued is typical stupidity from ignorant "twoofers" who have no clue about the subject matter. There is a cure, it's known as knowledge. Gain some and it will cure you of twooferism!

Otherwise, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself just as this poster has in confusing WAAS with remote control.



[edit on 9-10-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Reheat]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


This article talks about it .Or did he make all this up?

www.rumormillnews.com...

GPS,. remote control, are we going to really split that hair?Its control from an outside source, whether or not you punch in coordinates,or flying from a remote location via satellite ,It is still being electronically flown, Is it not?

The Title of the article ("CLINTON'S FAA PLANNED GLOBAL REMOTE CONTROL OF PLANES")
Now if i am reading correct, it says ["FAA planned remote control of planes"?]

And, we both, know we are talking, about remote, meaning, >>>>> remote location electronically, from a command center.(hence the title of the OP??)
Think what you want to think.electronically controlling planes is real as it gets .And yes it is done remotely.

I am talking fly by wire. Is that not done remotely ?? OR, Are you, thinking something else?By actual remote stick? Yes that also.Is that not electronically controlling a plane ??

And why so offended? ??Who are you! any way? Who made you king ding a ling ATS guy?

OH my bad! I forgot to mention Boeing 727, 737, 757, an Aerocommander 680E AND ...... (my bad) an Airbus, to single-engine aircraft) by computer. Do you feel better now?

Is that what got your panties in a wad? I said i had to find the article! and i am still looking, it was from over 10 years ago.

Geeze people need to chill the hell out around here, so damn tense. All of you need to smoke a spliff!!

But I, will from now on, before I post anything else, I will be sure to run it by you, so as to make sure, it meets your approval.Since from your tone, you must be ATS information NAZI.

Look at life from the middle not from the far left or far right.
And, we both know Reheat !I am not claiming to be the aviation expert,like some around here, are Am I? So the tone, you, reek of, is quite nasty, for what reason I have no clue. Why so offended? But what ever makes you feel bigger man, more power to ya!

Dont worry man its all good .Take an advill and drink a totty you seem very very stressed.

You just sound like you need a hug man.

HUG HUG KISS KISS


I will find the, GPS world article ,from 1995 . its barried,in internet world .I had it the actual article saved ,but have seem to have lost it some where .But dont worry ill find it.

for people who are new to the post .
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 



This thread should have been closed after weedwhacker's first post. All that has ensued is typical stupidity from ignorant "twoofers" who have no clue about the subject matter. There is a cure, it's known as knowledge. Gain some and it will cure you of twooferism!


When you can’t fight the Truth, ridiculing and name calling is the next best thing!



25 Tactics for Truth Suppression

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.


benfrank.net...



Otherwise, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself just as this poster has in confusing WAAS with remote control.


I believe lycopersicum has showed that he understands what’s he is talking about.




This has nothing to do with remote control.


Says whom?



It merely added an interface between the GPS Receiver and the Auto-Pilot allowing coupled navigation and/or a coupled approach.


Perhaps, but do you have a sources for this information that you just posted I would like to see the quote that states that, thank you.

I hope you know more about food than this subject or you might eat something poisonous. Don't bother to post more as you have no clue what you are even reading, let along trying to analyze it to discuss it.


You know you can try and be a little more respectful to other posters here, YOU don’t run the show here! These threads are for everyone not just for a few on here who “think” they know it all.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


If you ever get a clue (doubtful), come back and post something rational and I might acknowledge that you exist.

I will not waste my time typing hundreds of words trying to convince you or any other deluded fool that doesn't understand what he's reading of anything. Weedwhacker has already tried for naught, but all he has received in return is nonsense quite similar to the tripe you've written.

If you wanted to learn there are a few here that would be more than willing to teach. However it's quite obvious that you prefer to remain ignorant.

For the record, I'll state it again, WAAS was developed by adding additional satellites and ground stations to provide increased accuracy for navigation purposes. It is not related to remote control that is not controllable by the pilot in all respects at all times. Even a jihadist could override the autopilot simply by moving the controls.

In fact , jihadists did move the controls to crash into easily identified landmarks. They didn't need GPS to do that and it wasn't installed in the aircraft anyway.

Next.....



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join