Planes can be Electronically Hijacked, This is fact.

reply to post by Lillydale


I guess it is lucky for a lot of previous 757 airline passengers
-- that those aircraft don't have a reverse gear LOL

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Same thing...ya know, that's me talking. BUT, let's let Goober and Wiki speak for me...(and if I'd done this the first time I would have been accused of just knowing it BECAUSE I Goobered it.....sheesh!!!)

That is such a cute little blow off. There are mistakes and there are errors. You made two complete contradictions and I am not the only one that thought you were screwy for it. I am not nitpicking. You made opposing statements. Do you have trouble understanding my posts since you admit you cannot write in say...English? I do not know what Goober is and I think I referenced a wikipedia page once. If you can catch me plaherizing ANYTHING EVER then you have a point. Until then you are just trying to deflect your errors with accusing me of stealing other people's words. Classy.

I guess you can admit you messed up or you can just accuse me of something based on nothing in order to get some people to just look away. How is that working for you so far?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
my dilemma is, speaking to laypeople who can't tell the difference.

Quantum Physics in English




is still English. I thought we were speaking the same language. If you cannot explain it with said language, the fault hardly lies in the technical vastness of your knowledge. Before you go into your next diatribe, tell it to Brian Greene who has been able to bring string theory to children by "simply explaining it in English." I guess you are smarter than him though and that is why you cannot explain the difference between something that does receive and something that does NOT receive.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by weedwhacker
my dilemma is, speaking to laypeople who can't tell the difference.

Quantum Physics in English




is still English. I thought we were speaking the same language. If you cannot explain it with said language, the fault hardly lies in the technical vastness of your knowledge. Before you go into your next diatribe, tell it to Brian Greene who has been able to bring string theory to children by "simply explaining it in English." I guess you are smarter than him though and that is why you cannot explain the difference between something that does receive and something that does NOT receive.

A quark by any other name is still a random particle.
To evoke the string theory totally cracks me up and takes a little of the edge off the seriousness of the matter at hand.
You may profess to be a lady but if you don't mind, you got the 911 BUCKY BALLS.

I still get chills when I see that lone gunmen episode.

I think what's scary is how feasible the show made it seem. This very well explained tragedy nearly happens on a TV show about conspiracies, only to happen a few months later almost exactly as played out in the show.

Dean Haglund, the guy who played Langly, has a theory (I will sum it up roughly) about government agents or officials attending Hollywood parties, making suggestions to directors and producers about things, such as 9/11 and the show, I believe he said he had seen them talking to Chris Carter (creator of the X-Files/Executive Producer of The Lone Gunmen).

or something like that.

reply to post by Lillydale


Last time I looked this is NOT a 'court of law' and NOT a 'classroom'....

...but, if some get kicks out of impugning others, then so be it....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Last time I looked this is NOT a 'court of law' and NOT a 'classroom'....

...but, if some get kicks out of impugning others, then so be it....

Just a place where I thought people were discussing something in English. If you want to speak another language, please do so. If you are going to lie and contradict yourself, do not blame it on the fact that I understand the language and you do not.

Starred and Flagged.

Wow, if they had this yechnology in the 1940's. Pulling something like this off without even monitors, with 2001 GPS guidance technology, that can put a cruise missile through a window over however many hundreds of miles away.

Remote take over and flying those planes on 9/11 and hitting 75% of targets. Is completely plausible, and ALOT easier to do than Weedwhacker would have you believe.

Have to remeber the military has technology that we won't see for 20+ years. Do you realize how much technology advances nowadays, what the public will see in 20 years will be like out of a sci fi book. The military has it now.

Again OP, great video find, and I find this could be 100% plausible as to what happened on 9/11. Again with todays GPS, a Remote controlled Boeing could defeinitely be flown more precisely than someone with Hani Hanjour's flying skills.

I have been doing some digging in the department... I was a Planer ...
until - well untill I had reports of a jet just vanishing over 101 N.
in California - the plane had no sound - just 200 feet above the freeway and it just blinked out... and according to the Pilots who saw it... they freaked...
another report was one of a selected group of TV folk, and the story was the history of TV... after 20mins of boring information - he walked back on stage and in front of everybody, just vanished.... he was a halogram...
and then you look at the Air Forces wish list for 2025 and it describes this ability to a T...

and then we have CGI issues with the 911 footage...
nose outs and the like.... so I'm so sure they were real planes on 911.
the evidence would suggest there were none... and that's a point of
discussion that can not be resolved... except for the lack of plane parts from a 767 at any location that morning ... no parts equal no plane until proven otherwise...

The British have a Tornado fighter equiped with a system that can take over control of a hijacked airliner.

These types of systems have been around for years.

reply to post by PHIXER2

The British have a Tornado fighter equiped with a system that can take over control of a hijacked airliner.

That is quite a statement.

AND it is unfounded and unsupported UNTIL you cite a source for it.

We are waiting.....
__________________________________________________________

here, I'll blow you out of the water all by myself...

Tornado jet fighters are being scrambled on intercept counter-hijacking operations every month to check on commercial airliners flying into British airspace, the head of the RAF has disclosed to The Times.
It is the first time since the end of the Cold War that fighters are being regularly scrambled from UK air bases to monitor aircraft in national airspace.

Please explain HOW they can "take over control" again???

The operation to check up on planes is producing a bill running into tens of thousands of pounds as it costs between £7,000 and £9,000 for a Tornado to be in the air for an hour.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpey, the Chief of the Air Staff, said that since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington there had been at least one incident a month requiring an RAF fighter from a quick-reaction alert unit to intervene.

He told The Times: “The Tornados have been launching pretty regularly for any aircraft that appear to be behaving oddly: for instance, where airline pilots fail to communicate with flight control or take an unexpected route.”

Now, this is a common occurence...losing touch, missing a frequency change....too bad it doesn't happen more often in the USA...oh, wait, it DOES!

He added: “We’re pretty acutely aware of the short time that we have to respond to these incidents. If there is any doubt at all about an aircraft, we launch the Tornados.”

NOW, remember something about the size of the ENTIRE UK, compared to the USA...OK?

But, this gets interesting...and tears up so MANY 9/11 "conspiracy theorists"....

Before the 9/11 attacks there were no interceptions of commercial airliners but the heightened terrorist threat now means that any deviation from a strict flight plan tends to trigger an interception by a Tornado. Four quick-reaction alert Tornado F3 planes are on permanent standby to investigate any plane that has not conformed precisely to accepted flight control procedures. Two are at RAF Marham in Norfolk and a further two at RAF Leuchars, the most northerly air defence station, in Fife, eastern Scotland. In addition, RAF fighter crews are kept in close proximity to royal flights in case of terror emergencies.

Need I mention the relative SIZE if the landmass that is the UK???

*skipping*

The RAF chief told The Times of an incident last month when the captain of a North West Airlines plane flying from Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris to Detroit in the United States asked to divert to Prestwick after a passenger became disruptive. The RAF was alerted and a decision taken to shadow the flight with a Tornado F3 that was already airborne. When the passenger became increasingly agitated the airline pilot was put on route to Prestwick, near Glasgow, and landed safely.

AGAIN,,,, just WHERE did the Tornado fighter "take over" the suspected hijacked airplane?????

The very nature of this baloney comes from UNSUPPORTED and IMAGINATIVE ideas, based solely, it seems, on what some Hollywood scriptwriter was conjured up (and after some idiot Hollywood "producers" have meddled with it, against the writer's wishes...and the 'Director" shoots it, without stopping to question its veracity or logic...)

SO, people (layman) buy into it, because it SELLS POPCORN and brings them to the theater....




[edit on 16 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by PHIXER2

 

The British have a Tornado fighter equiped with a system that can take over control of a hijacked airliner.

That is quite a statement.

AND it is unfounded and unsupported UNTIL you cite a source for it.

We are waiting.....

You're wasting your time.

That's Ultima you're responding to.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're wasting your time.

That's Ultima you're responding to.

You are correct, Joey

I can link posts where he has made those exact statements...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...plus his photobucket account is phixer6.

coincidence?

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]

reply to post by gavron


How about that. Here I thought that you had claimed I was this Ultima person. What is my photobucket account name? Where are there any similarities in my writing and his/hers??? I know an adult would apologize for accusing someone of something and getting it wrong. I will just have to wait and see what you are.

Originally posted by gavron


You are correct, Joey

I can link posts where he has made those exact statements...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...plus his photobucket account is phixer6.

coincidence?

[edit on 16-10-2009 by gavron]

No.

I already called him out.

And he admitted to it in the OT posts he and I had.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
That is quite a statement.

AND it is unfounded and unsupported UNTIL you cite a source for it.

We are waiting.....

Gee you really should learn how to do research.

Its so fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts and evidence.

www.newscientist.com...
UK defence firm Qinetiq demonstrated the system on 30 March. The pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner carrying members of the press, including New Scientist, and flying at an altitude of 4500 metres (15000 feet).




[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]

Originally posted by PHIXER2

www.newscientist.com...
UK defence firm Qinetiq demonstrated the system on 30 March. The pilot of a modified Tornado fighter plane assumed remote control of a BAC 1-11 airliner carrying members of the press, including New Scientist, and flying at an altitude of 4500 metres (15000 feet).

March 30, 2007....

not exactly before the 911 attacks....

Originally posted by gavron
March 30, 2007....

not exactly before the 911 attacks....

Well if you would have read my post it stated that these types of systems have been in the workings by several companies for years.

In fact Israel was accused of bringing down a airliner by remote control several years ago.

YOU REALLY SHOULD LEARN HOW TO DO REAL RESEARCH INSTEAD OF CHERRYPICKING



[edit on 16-10-2009 by PHIXER2]