reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
SKL, all bickering aside ( if certain other members would stop pontificating on things they don't understand ) I think just perhpas, in connecting
the dots, you've found more than originally existed.
And before I get the "pot is kettle" comment slapped at my face, let's try to factor out the "Northwoods" and "Pearl Harbor" distractions.
It is indisputable that some over-zealous Cabinet (those who had, likely, connections to Eisenhower's warnings about the 'MIC', so their
motivations were more than just National Security....I say, they had financial impetus as well...) members in the Kennedy Administration proposed
"Operation Northwoods".
However, as I understand it, "Northwoods" was offered as intended to be hoax, no actual injuries (at least to "friendlies"). Back in those days,
before the instant information available to just about everyone in the Free World, it mmight have been doable.
"Pearl", after all of these years???? We get vague and unsubstantiated claims, perhaps
because of the ready availibilty of so much
information via the Internet (combined with the inevitable fact that those who were THERE are dying off, just as is the case with the "Holocaust
Deniers' Movement" --- it is a simple fact that history can be 'revisionist', unless you guard against it with real facts, and not suppostions and
innuendos, made by certain people with unknown or suspect agendas....)
I'd prefer that Pearl Harbor be relegated to its own thread, because the circumstances are grossly different, even IF (and that's a big 'IF') you
wish to make the argument for pre-cognition of that attack, on the part of the Roosevelt Administration. (And if you can't understand WHY the
circumstances were so different, read a history book...)
Now, with that foreshadowing, here are your post and comments that triggered this reply:
The fact that no one got fired for the events of 9/11 and that people who actually tried to speak out, within the agencies responsible for
stopping it, is itself something that should be a red flag for most people.
I agree with that assessment, up to the 'red flag' point...
The Intelligence failures, not only as the (still fairly new) G W Bush Administration (and whilst trying to remove/destroy everything the Clinton
Administration had accomplished prior) went back INTO the Clinton era, as well, so many, many there are also culpable in those mistakes, and that's
what I see as the 'CYA' activity that has gone on ever since. THAT, the 'CYA' (and I kept it in acronym, for the youngsters...but everyone should
understand what I meant) ... the 'CYA' is just a case of job preservation at the least, and escaping gross negligence charges at the worst.
Oh, and lots and lots of finger-pointing...."NMJ" --- that one's clean, it's "Not My Job", a relative of "NIMBY".
Remember, in the "Responsibility Department" flow-chart, when the dirt hits the fan those near the bottom do what they can do throw it back up,
those at the top (with the most power, usually) keep shovelling it downward, and only those who manage to keep clean will survive the taint.
Many Government people were threatened and or reprimanded for that alone.
Yes. See above. Those who cannot 'play' the system, and skate free of the blame, sometimes take a version of the 'fall'. It's called
"Politics". Whether in an office with three people, or in the United States Government, with all of its hidey-holes...
Meaning that they were told not to tell the truth.
Ah!!! Here's the crux of misunderstanding about how that game was played.
I've given you the outline, up above.
But, when you've made up your mind into the notion that some sort of 'super-power-higher-ups' came in and cajoled, threatened, or in any other way
held sway over what WOULD and WOULD NOT be 'said'...well, ATS
IS touting itself as a 'conspiracy' site, so that sort of thinking is
lopgical in this site's context, BUT you should have substantial evidence to support that idea.
I've presented a very different (and more Humanistic idea), in the sense that it follows Human behavior, without the need for a huge 'cover-up' and
the very real possibility of ANY 'leaks' causing the entire thing to unravel.
Hate to be simplistic, but there's an adage (which I am paraphrasing from memory) that supposes that if two people know a secret, it is no longer a
secret.
SKL, you are a thoughtful poster, and diligent in your research.
We all bring, each of us, something to this table, in examining events.
Some won't accept that OTHERS have experience, and knowledge, that doesn't fit in with their perceptions. So be it.
I merely wished to answer this post of yours, because it showed insight, and happened to seem to mesh with my interpretation of events, based on what
I know...
PS....I won't add here about R/C, except to say I'd suggest you investigate, in the research into the remote control aspects as regards aviation,
the SPEEDS involved when you consider all of the various drones and existing technology that offers R/C.
It IS a burgeoning technology, but....look closely at the dates, and the aspects, (and how limited it is, in many respects).
I can only give you direction, from the perspective of a person who actually has flown the Boeing 757/767, and has a great deal of experience in their
design (from having to know the airplanes that we fly) and having personal knowledge of how various autoflight systems (autopilots) work, how they are
utilized by pilots, how they're programmed (for smoothness, and passenger comfort) and why those systems, as installed on a Boeing, would NOT be
conducive to the R/C ideas that you've been studying, not without SUBSTANTIAL changes, which would involve not ONLY the servos that operate the
flight controls (and the engine controls), but also the software parameters. These are not things that could be accomplished easily, not even WHEN
you imagine vast amounts of unlimited money available, because it's simply unreasonable!!!
(Think, for example, just what's involved in something as basic as Microsoft deciding to keep offering new, and allegedly 'better', operating
systems for PCs every few years. HOW MANY people are involved in re-writing the software, each time??? AND they are simply expanding on an
already-in-use-platform, not completely altering many basic formats...I mean, look into the compaines that provide software for the autoflight systems
on the various Boeing products, to get a clue...)
Here....the type of FMC software that is currently in use, at least on Boeings, had its origin back in 1984. It has been extensiviely enhanced (but
maybe not in the way that you'd hope) ever since:
www.b737.org.uk...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edit in:
another link:
www.projectmagenta.com...
Just to show the evolution of the "Glass cockpit" concept, as seen through many eyes. (In this case, SO MANY wannabe 'pilots' who have used
sourcing, or whatever, to re-create the experiences of an actual airplane...and the technology that's a part of it, for hob by purposes).
NOT to be confused witht he real thing...which is likely part of the problem....jus' sayin'!!!
I edit, but I leave so many typos....ah, well....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This was the sort of 'integrated' cockpit that made older, more traditionally-oriented pilots blanche at the technology....these are guys who
couldn't stop their VCR clock from flashing!
OK, they were pilots, they weren't ALL that stupid....but, we are used to visualizing things in ways that the computer engineers who wrote
(initially) the software didn't understand.
The concepts evolved, with feedbacks from pilots, FAA, etc....and the technology, at least in representing and interpretation for pilots IN the
cockpit, has improved.
Still, though, when it comes to how well any autoflight (and by proxy, the 'R/C' controls) can accomadate higer speeds, well it's all a combination
of human reaction time, even IF enhanced by any computer ttech.
Right now, the slower the better, in terms of R/C.
That's my point, in this post (secondary)...the two Boeing 767s, (AA 11 and UA 175) would not have been controllable UNLESS an actual Human was
manipulating the controls. There is just no replacement for the sensory apparatus that we all possess, no machine has ever yet replaced the Human
brain, and motor skills required.
Regardless of how much 'technology' you imagine, for the R/C pilot, short of full-immersion (which, AFAIK, does not yet exist....except in the movie
"AVATAR") and full tactile and g-force and every other sense imaginable, even the full-motion, best in the world simulators we airline pilots train
on only come close...(and, yes, I know, I know....the Militry has more and better, even so far as to re-create g-forces, but in ALL cases even a
simulator eventually reaches a limitation.....)
I hope I have given you a substantial amount to chew on.....
[edit on 21 January 2010 by weedwhacker]
[edit on 21 January 2010 by weedwhacker]
