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.

 

New Operation Northwoods Theory Twist : Laser Guided Plane, Tower 7, and the WTC Observation Deck

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Now, are you referring to "bunk" about 9/11 or what I can prove about Pearl Harbor?

I have read many books on both, and you're still not successfully de-bunking me.

I honestly don't think weedwhacker reads books - he just regurgitates what he thinks he knows. If he ever read a book like "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" -- from a decorated WWII veteran who served under Bush Sr., now a WWII historian who consults for the BBC/NHK Japanese TV and who spent over a decade researching 200,000 FOIA documents -- he'd never spout off about Pearl Harbor again.



[edit on 1/20/2010 by GoldenFleece]


I have no clue what weedwhacker does or does not read, and I am not going to comment on that, because I know no matter what, people learn from all areas in life.

 


I have never heard of that book you reference there, GoldenFleece.

I learned what I learned about Pearl Harbor because of my studies of history, and never ever being satisfied with the official version of history itself, let alone the official story of any controversial story.

See, I was taught early on, that history books are written by the victor, not the vanquished.

That you have to learn to not only see what is written but what is not written.

And to see between the lines and the lies.

That is something I have learned to do well.

Government does not only use propaganda against the enemies of America, it uses it against its own people, to subjugate them, to appease those who know there is more to the story, and Government is addicted to propaganda like a crack-baby.

I studied Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, the Art of War, and many other specifics which have helped me get the closest I feel to the truth about how Government really operates.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

SKL, you sound like a very wise person, but I guarantee weedwhacker hasn't read anything that challenges his views, because they're set in stone. He's been hawking the OS for years, even after hundreds of threads have called into question nearly every aspect of the government's fairy tale.

As for "Day of Deceit", it's a great book because of the meticulous research that went into it -- 17 years and over 200,000 FOIA documents:


From Publishers Weekly

Historians have long debated whether President Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Japan's December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Using documents pried loose through the Freedom of Information Act during 17 years of research, Stinnett provides overwhelming evidence that FDR and his top advisers knew that Japanese warships were heading toward Hawaii. The heart of his argument is even more inflammatory: Stinnett argues that FDR, who desired to sway public opinion in support of U.S. entry into WWII, instigated a policy intended to provoke a Japanese attack. The plan was outlined in a U.S. Naval Intelligence secret strategy memo of October 1940; Roosevelt immediately began implementing its eight steps (which included deploying U.S. warships in Japanese territorial waters and imposing a total embargo intended to strangle Japan's economy), all of which, according to Stinnett, climaxed in the Japanese attack. Stinnett, a decorated naval veteran of WWII who served under then Lt. George Bush, substantiates his charges with a wealth of persuasive documents, including many government and military memos and transcripts. Demolishing the myth that the Japanese fleet maintained strict radio silence, he shows that several Japanese naval broadcasts, intercepted by American cryptographers in the 10 days before December 7, confirmed that Japan intended to start the war at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett convincingly demonstrates that the U.S. top brass in Hawaii--Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Husband Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Walter Short--were kept out of the intelligence loop on orders from Washington and were then scapegoated for allegedly failing to anticipate the Japanese attack (in May 1999, the U.S. Senate cleared their names). Kimmel moved his fleet into the North Pacific, actively searching for the suspected Japanese staging area, but naval headquarters ordered him to turn back. Stinnett's meticulously researched book raises deeply troubling ethical issues. While he believes the deceit built into FDR's strategy was heinous, he nevertheless writes: "I sympathize with the agonizing dilemma faced by President Roosevelt. He was forced to find circuitous means to persuade an isolationist America to join in a fight for freedom." This, however, is an expression of understanding, not of absolution. If Stinnett is right, FDR has a lot to answer for--namely, the lives of those Americans who perished at Pearl Harbor. Stinnett establishes almost beyond question that the U.S. Navy could have at least anticipated the attack. The evidence that FDR himself deliberately provoked the attack is circumstantial, but convincing enough to make Stinnett's bombshell of a book the subject of impassioned debate in the months to come.



[edit on 1/22/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


"TWO" stars...for that nonsense???

Well, you should buy drinks for you "friends"...

I am far, far more well-learned than you imagine....and this is indicated by just about every post made, notwhithstanding the incredible "starring" that goes on....

A thread involving antique ideas, is VERY well-suited to destroying and deflecting from actual historical information...

I suggest a great discipline of reading, of actual books, and NOT just solely from the Internet....try to get a membership at you local Library, for a START.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


As for "Day of Deceit", it's a great book because of the meticulous research that went into it -- 17 years and over 200,000 FOIA documents.
[edit on 1/22/2010 by GoldenFleece]


Thank you for bringing that book to my attention.

I will be purchasing it even though I have probably read a variety of the information.

When I purchase books or get them from the library they always lead me to more books.

I value intelligence over everything else in the rest of the known world.

Which is why I "Deny Ignorance" the way I do on ATS throughout my posting.

Content, context, and intent holds through my knowledge, experience, and shared ideas.

I do not believe the "Official Story" but as well I see the "Truther Movement" is missing something.

Which is why I sit right in the middle between the truth and lies of 9/11.

Neither an "Official Story" believer nor a "Truther Movement" follower.

I see both sides as having bits of the facts and bits of the blowback from propaganda.

Me?

I am carefully sifting through the rubble looking not for survivors but facts.

Our foreign policy is deplorable and is exactly what got us into this current mess.

Our domestic policy is easily over-run by politicians who take advantage of our foreign policy.

We are slowly being sucked dry of money due to the United Nations and the events of 9/11.

I guarantee I will enjoy that book with all of the information packed within it.

Thanks again.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Great thread, SKL! You have faced some harsh criticism on this one, because it is wound that will never heal. To many unanswered questions and to much derision of by those accepting the official story and the detractors. However, it should be looked over and looked over again. Maybe all our allegations are wrong or maybe they are right? Something very strange happened that day, and yet questions arise, even after the official findings by the Federal Government. It was certainly a mortal wound to this country, as was the Vietnam War and the JFK Assassination. Those two tragedies are discussed at length even today. So, it stands to reason that this particular tragedy will be discussed and debated, for years to come, as well.

Perhaps, a follow-up investigation is in order with an objective panel of both parties, those that adhere to the official story and the detractors . . . Allow them access to all available information; granted they all meet security clearance requirements. Therefore, both parties will, hopefully, compile the evidence and reach a conclusion everyone can be comfortable with. Perhaps, that solution, is only wishful thinking, because I don't ever see it happening, and the disagreement will continue.

However, I say, let the debate continue and hopefully a follow-up investigation will reach fruition on such a controversial topic? Personally, I have many questions and concerns, as many do, surrounding that day. So, lets pool our minds together in civil discourse, rather than slighting each other. As it stands now, nothing should be left off the table to fill in the cracks regarding one of the country's worst tragedies since Pearl Harbor. The incident just has a mountain of loose ends and is one of the biggest conspiracies the world has ever seen. Keep up the good work, SKL! "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't always make it drink."

[edit on 25-1-2010 by Jakes51]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Jakes51, glad you appreciate the thread, and my idea of living in neither camp.

I do not see that I am an "Official Story" believer nor a "Truther Movement" follower.

I am somewhere in the middle ground of it all and I do believe we need an official investigation.

What the 9/11 Commission did was not only laughable as an investigation but a slap in the face of the family members of those who died in those two towers and all planes.

I know what an investigation entails and nothing in the way of investigative procedures was followed.

It was merely a cover-up of all facts and release of selected information.

That is not what an investigation does that is what Government hiding things does though.

What is being covered up is in the relationship of the Al Saud family to the Bush family.



That any of those "terrorists" were Saudi Arabian citizens is glossed over.

Some of the "Official Story" believers see that but think no big deal.

Some of the "Truther Movement" followers see that but miss the details.

This is neither and attack on either side but to me, that should be a joining place where both sides back the Hell up and begin asking questions, which will be seen as an intelligent median between both versions of the story of 9/11.

Until both sides put down the snide commentary, and until both sides quit putting each other down through their name calling, and as well until both sides can agree there are facts missing, I cannot fully respect either side of the dispute.

There are however individuals from both camps I see as digging still on ATS.

Even in the midst of the information, both sides are digging, whether for truth, or cover-up.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, both sides are coming back to the middle, slowly.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


"TWO" stars...for that nonsense???

Well, you should buy drinks for you "friends"...

I am far, far more well-learned than you imagine....and this is indicated by just about every post made, notwhithstanding the incredible "starring" that goes on....



So you brag about how much knowledge you have and even just make up titles for yourself and that should be good enough?

Here is some help. Present some facts and some sources and that will be enough. Constantly bragging about how smart thyself is does more damage than good to your credibility. I guess you know that though and that is why you decided to stop pursuing the lie about being a technical writer.

Stop telling people how much knowledge you have. Stop trying to prove it by going off topic to quote from manuals and books. Just present us with all these wonderful facts you know and where we can check them.

I am not sure why anyone on an internet forum would think insisting, bragging, and lying lend credibility where there is none.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Yes, you are correct andthe middle ground must be met between both parties. Just look at the evidence for what it is and form a conclusion. Oh, the middle ground, what a place that was when people could congregate there on a given topic. It seems like that is an orphan now with all the partisanship and snide commentary between each other. I realize it hurts, and many died, but we can at least look at all sides of the story and the investigation with respect for each other.

Sometimes the fury clouds our ability to make a logical conclusion with the evidence presented. I wish there was a general consensus among the American people, for at the very least, a demand for a follow-up investigation. Just so many questions, and thanks for the alternate view on the topic. As said earlier, nothing should be left off the table of consideration regarding this tragedy. Until I see a smoking gun, which I have not, I am willing to at least look at all theories.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



... Stop trying to prove it by going off topic to quote from manuals and books...


Oh, is this not the funniest thing I have ever seen posted???

The entire POINT of this thread is that the so-called "knowledge" is derived from books, and manuals, and whether they are literal or virtual, it is still information...wrongly interpreted, in this case, but informaiton nonetheless...


Just present us with all these wonderful facts you know and where we can check them.


LOL!!!

"Where we can check them"???

Oh that is priceless!!! Thanks for the belly laugh...

No, it is incumbent upon the OP, not I...but thanks for playing.

So far, OP has not met the full standards of even minimal journalistic credibility, sorry OP....

(I know you have a status, on ATS....but no one can be :expert: in all realms. I don't claim to be, never have claimed to be "expert' at anything, but I DO have a great deal of experience in one area, so that is my forte'....)



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I don't claim to be, never have claimed to be "expert' at anything,



That is untrue to say the least. You claim with your ego, to be “expert” in flying and you have done nothing but “brag” and “insult” everyone who does not support the OS that has mostly been proven all lies.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Yeah, but I know a lot, and have never been shown to be wrong.

Oh, wait....I am being "baited"...and i fell for it.

Note to self...."Do not allow yourself to be baited again, lest you suffer the consequences..."

Oh, well....guess this will be relegated to the trash-heap of "Off-Topic Land" soon.

Maybe I can salvage it, before it gets tossed....

"Laser-Guided Plane", from the title of the OP???

Hogwash!!!

Distractons aside, this has not been sufficiently explained.

My only regret is that I am forced to remain behind a keyboard, and my expertise is not available to display adequately, to these anonymous posters who think they know so much...guess I'M also an 'anonymous' poster as well, so I can choke on that along with everyone else...however, my CONTENT precedes me...well, not 'precedes' me, it follows for any who care to actually view it....

Could, on reflection, possibly arrange to make a video and upload it to the ATS video site, but would be unlikely to convince the many doubters, regardelss.

Shame.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Dr. John Parmentola, Director of Research and Laboratory Management with the Army’s science and technology office, told military bloggers Nov. 3 that the Army is “making science fiction into reality” by creating realistic holographic images, generating virtual humans and diving into quantum computing.


DoD official online website



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 



Originally posted by weedwhacker
The entire POINT of this thread is that the so-called "knowledge" is derived from books, and manuals, and whether they are literal or virtual, it is still information...wrongly interpreted, in this case, but informaiton nonetheless...


Actually, that is the point of all threads on ATS, based on knowledge.

Sorry, but I fail to see how books, manuals, etc show a lack of information.

So, what you're saying is book smart people are stupid?

Does this fallacy cover street smart people too?

Sorry, that does not cut it either way, I happen to be both book smart and street smart.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
LOL!!!

"Where we can check them"???

Oh that is priceless!!! Thanks for the belly laugh...

No, it is incumbent upon the OP, not I...but thanks for playing.

So far, OP has not met the full standards of even minimal journalistic credibility, sorry OP....


Actually, I wonder if you know what a debate is or how one is done.

You have to be able to back up your assessments, or you have done nothing but commented in circular logic.

So, either prove your point, or any of them, with places where other people can research and dispute, or you are just talking with zero proof to refute anything.

Other than your word.

So far I have never called into question someone's word, but you never seem to back up your arguments with anything other than what you state are known facts, giving no one anything other than baseless theory and unproven conjecture.

If you supply no links, books, or research information where you take your theories from, you are forcing people to either do their own independent research of your claims, or completely write you off.

Quit being lazy.

If you're not willing to back up your claims I sure am not going to research what you have to say because you're not giving anyone anything to refute that way because you are making claims no one can counter, making in essence your own straw man theory based on an alleged knowledge.

I'm not going to invesitgate your claims based on nothing more than the fact that you know how to type and talk, at least people here supply information, and like myself, I supply links for people to corroborate my findings.

If they can actually refute me based on that supplied information, so be it.

That just means I missed something and I'm willing to admit it when I'm wrong.

Which only adds to me "Deny'ing Ignorance" and takes nothing away.

Oh, and I could care less if you are a pilot, being a pilot proves nothing.

Other than you know how to fly a plane, which is meaningless, unless we're speaking about planes.

Before you think it and comment, I am not claiming you are not a pilot.

If you are, great, if you are not great, but to me it means little to nothing.

If you have knowledge of planes, no matter whether you gained it through flying them, or reading about them in comic books, I'm going to treat you with dignity and respect.

That's something everyone on ATS should do within reason.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
(I know you have a status, on ATS....but no one can be :expert: in all realms. I don't claim to be, never have claimed to be "expert' at anything, but I DO have a great deal of experience in one area, so that is my forte'....)


Yes, I keep reading about your forte, which is like you slapping people with a brick.

Sooner or later people will take that brick from you.

Do not be surprised when those same people beat you senseless, metaphorically.

I am not defending Lillydale because I happen to agree with the reply but disagree with the delivery.

In other words, somewhere between the last encounter you two had, it carried over here.

Hey, weedwhacker, for your own benefit, it might do you good to actually supply links.

Otherwise you will grate on everyone's nerves.

Every time I see you make a snide comment, every time I see you belittle people, every time I see you not supply something to back up your knowledge other than your stated knowledge, you become a smaller person to me.

Which is why I do not resort to name calling, nor do I resort to belittling people, nor do I resort to trash-talking, because I rather enjoy getting a conversation carried out in a civil manner through intelligent discourse online and in person.

Nothing in this post should be misconstrued as belittling to you either because believe it or not, so far I respect you, but each time you post like the one's you have here I lose just a little more respect for you and each time that happens I begin questioning whether I should just add you to ignore or not.

See, I either add people to my "Respected Foes" list, or ignore.

The people who get onto my "Respected Foes" are people who I disagree with, but can be amicable with, and those who I ignore are people I see as not qualifying for my taking time to read their posts and or threads.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Actually, it already has a patent...So check it out!


*Patent
Author Year Title Country Assignee Number URL
Mcelhannon, Raymond J. (c/o Cooper, Dunham, Clark, Griffin & Moran, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY, 10020) 1980 Laser guided blind landing system for aircraft United States 4196346 www.freepatentsonline.com...




[edit on 26-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Actually, it already has a patent...So check it out!


*Patent
Author Year Title Country Assignee Number URL
Mcelhannon, Raymond J. (c/o Cooper, Dunham, Clark, Griffin & Moran, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY, 10020) 1980 Laser guided blind landing system for aircraft United States 4196346 www.freepatentsonline.com...




[edit on 26-1-2010 by mikelee]


Fascinating.



Quote from : Patent 4196346 - Laser Guided Blind Landing System

A laser guided blind landing system for aircraft comprising in combination:

a longitudinally extending runway, a plurality of laser beam generators mounted in longitudinally spaced alignment therewith at one end thereof, said generators being positioned to direct laser beams therefrom at progressively increasing coplanar inclinations away from said runway in progressive sequence from the nearest to the furthest therefrom, thereby to produce intersecting segments of said beams in pairs of each, of least slope adjacent said runway and of greatest slope remotest therefrom, the so intersecting laser beam segments thereby forming a continuous laser aircraft glide path of gradually decreasing slope from said segment remotest from said runway to that closest thereto.

Preferably all of the laser generators radiate laser beams of distinctively different wavelengths or are tone modulated at different frequencies, except for the runway approach beam which may be of wavelength in the visible spectra.


Interesting read indeed.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah, but I know a lot, and have never been shown to be wrong.


Wrong, you have been proven wrong many times, however if one is in denial, then one cannot be wrong, don’t you agree?



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Yikes!!!!

Sorry, guys, sorry you fall for any "Pie-in-the-sky" patent filing that comes along....

WE already have the technology for "blind landings"...more correctly, it is technology that's existed for decades, using existing VHF and UHF transmitters, and the appropriate receiving devices onboard, to operate in very liitied visibility conditions....

BUT, every instance of the use of this technology requires a Human presence, and certain training protocols, etc, etc...

BTW, the future of what's known, in the industry, as "Category III" ILS landing operations (they are further defined as "CATIIIa, CatIIIb or CATIIIc, depending on various things that are too detailed to explain, here) will likely evolve into the use of GPS, someday. THAT is being researched.

In the interim, if it "ain't broke, don't fix it!!"

We know how to do many things, that have been proven, tested, and shown to be reliable.

Technology marches forward, of course, but it ONLY accepted (and utilized, implemented) after due process and evaluation and testing, testing, testing....and adminiatrative "review", more testing, etc, etc.

Seriously, the fantasy of such advanced technologies, as proposed in this OP, are best relegated (so far) to science fiction stories.

Not saying that SOME ideas won't eventually become common, and routine, but there is so much misunderstanding, of this topic, it is iincredible.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Yikes!!!!

Sorry, guys, sorry you fall for any "Pie-in-the-sky" patent filing that comes along....


From my quote of my own post below you actually think anything?


Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by mikelee
Actually, it already has a patent...So check it out!


*Patent
Author Year Title Country Assignee Number URL
Mcelhannon, Raymond J. (c/o Cooper, Dunham, Clark, Griffin & Moran, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY, 10020) 1980 Laser guided blind landing system for aircraft United States 4196346 www.freepatentsonline.com...




[edit on 26-1-2010 by mikelee]


Fascinating.



Quote from : Patent 4196346 - Laser Guided Blind Landing System

A laser guided blind landing system for aircraft comprising in combination:

a longitudinally extending runway, a plurality of laser beam generators mounted in longitudinally spaced alignment therewith at one end thereof, said generators being positioned to direct laser beams therefrom at progressively increasing coplanar inclinations away from said runway in progressive sequence from the nearest to the furthest therefrom, thereby to produce intersecting segments of said beams in pairs of each, of least slope adjacent said runway and of greatest slope remotest therefrom, the so intersecting laser beam segments thereby forming a continuous laser aircraft glide path of gradually decreasing slope from said segment remotest from said runway to that closest thereto.

Preferably all of the laser generators radiate laser beams of distinctively different wavelengths or are tone modulated at different frequencies, except for the runway approach beam which may be of wavelength in the visible spectra.


Interesting read indeed.


All I said was fascinating, and an interesting read, nothing more, nothing less.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
WE already have the technology for "blind landings"...more correctly, it is technology that's existed for decades, using existing VHF and UHF transmitters, and the appropriate receiving devices onboard, to operate in very liitied visibility conditions....


Yes, I do not believe anyone has disputed that, so far, but someone else thought it might be relevant to the topic discussion, and I left them the respect of that.

Whether I believe it is a "smoking gun" or not.

In other words, I welcome all theories, and will sort through them as this thread develops.

There are many technologies that have not been discussed on ATS before.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
BUT, every instance of the use of this technology requires a Human presence, and certain training protocols, etc, etc...


Yes, of course, if the computer system fails, there needs to be a human operator.

Policy, procedure, and protocol are something I understand fully.

So, what exactly is your point, and will you make it soon, please?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW, the future of what's known, in the industry, as "Category III" ILS landing operations (they are further defined as "CATIIIa, CatIIIb or CATIIIc, depending on various things that are too detailed to explain, here) will likely evolve into the use of GPS, someday. THAT is being researched.


Nothing is too detailed to explain, providing you use website links so everyone can follow along, not just the "tech geeks", and if it is relevant to either defending or refuting the topic of the thread.

Everything connected to a computer will someday be able to function autonomously.

That is the way all systems have been heading since the assembly line first came out.

Nothing new here.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
In the interim, if it "ain't broke, don't fix it!!"


Of course.



Originally posted by weedwhacker
We know how to do many things, that have been proven, tested, and shown to be reliable.

Technology marches forward, of course, but it ONLY accepted (and utilized, implemented) after due process and evaluation and testing, testing, testing....and adminiatrative "review", more testing, etc, etc.


I see you are making generalized commentary.

Care to elaborate?

You're beginning to lose my attention because you're not stating anything the majority of other people can figure out for themselves, myself included.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Seriously, the fantasy of such advanced technologies, as proposed in this OP, are best relegated (so far) to science fiction stories.


So, what you are saying, is that you know nothing about airplanes and jets?

Because the auto-pilot system alone is a rudimentary "remote control", a computer controlling the general controls of the plane while the pilot and co-pilot take a break.

Sort of a low-tech version of a robot.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Autopilot

An autopilot is a mechanical, electrical, or hydraulic system used to guide a vehicle without assistance from a human being.

Most people understand an autopilot to refer specifically to aircraft, but self-steering gear for ships, boats, space craft and missiles are sometimes also called by this term.

The autopilot of an aircraft is sometimes referred to as "George."


Okay, "George", you're being called out on airline technology now.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not saying that SOME ideas won't eventually become common, and routine, but there is so much misunderstanding, of this topic, it is iincredible.


Autopilot is common in all larger commercial jets now, they control airspeed, flight path, altitude, and various other rudimentary elements of the jet.

See, when you do not provide links, other people will begin searching for themselves.

Not to defend your position, but to pick it apart, and when people begin researching for themselves, and begin seeing the details for themselves, more comes to be known.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Autopilot : Categories

CAT I - This category permits pilots to land with a decision height of 200 ft (61 m) and a forward visibility or Runway Visual Range (RVR) of 550 m. Simplex autopilots are sufficient.

CAT II - This category permits pilots to land with a decision height between 200 ft and 100 ft (≈ 30 m) and a RVR of 350 m. Autopilots have a fail passive requirement.

CAT IIIa -This category permits pilots to land with a decision height as low as 50 ft (15 m) and a RVR of 200 m. It needs a fail-passive autopilot. There must be only a 10-6 probability of landing outside the prescribed area.

CAT IIIb - As IIIa but with the addition of automatic roll out after touchdown incorporated with the pilot taking control some distance along the runway. This category permits pilots to land with a decision height less than 50 feet or no decision height and a forward visibility of 250 ft (76 m, compare this to aircraft size, some of which are now over 70 m long) or 300 ft (91 m) in the United States. For a landing-without-decision aid, a fail-operational autopilot is needed. For this category some form of runway guidance system is needed: at least fail-passive but it needs to be fail-operational for landing without decision height or for RVR below 100 m.

CAT IIIc - As IIIb but without decision height or visibility minimums, also known as "zero-zero".

Fail-passive autopilot: in case of failure, the aircraft stays in a controllable position and the pilot can take control of it to go around or finish landing. It is usually a dual-channel system.

Fail-operational autopilot: in case of a failure below alert height, the approach, flare and landing can still be completed automatically. It is usually a triple-channel system or dual-dual system.


So, while we have established you know the lingo, and I am not saying you're not a pilot, we have established anyone cannot go looking for the information to refute you.

See, I know how to do research, and while that does not necessarily mean I am an expert on airplanes, or flying for that matter, it does mean you're going to have to step up your posts now and quit being snide to everyone, because I'm asking you nicely.

Anything contained in a book, a website link, or certain keywords can be looked up.

You have done nothing but give me a reason to prove my stance more now.

Instead of flapping about your stance as a pilot and "authority" on airplanes, you might have considered that there are people out there who will actually go the extra mile just to make you put up, or shut up.

I mean that with all the respect in the world too because it is not a snide comment.

Merely, a challenge, put up, or shut up, provide more of a challenge, please.

Because so far your arguments are boring me to no end because they are easy.

Anyone can name call, anyone can make snide and derisive comments, and anyone can make claims, but few people can actually speak intelligently, few people can lead by example, and few people can post in the 9/11 Forum area without dings.

ATS has a zero tolerance for nonsense in this forum area and I love that.

It means I need to be on my best behavior and that's something I am an expert on.


Quote from : Pre-Post Window :

You are an experienced contributor to ATS.

Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.


I'm making myself an example for the newer members here on ATS and the 9/11 Forum.

I'm going to challenge you to do so too.

This means an end of your nasty commentary, if you're up to the challenge.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


SKL.....you have your finger on the problem I face....because you can 'Google" so much, nowadays, I can't say anything without being accused of simply 'Googling' it for myself.

HOWEVER, there are things I know, and have written, that OTHERS here at ATS can read, and know that I know, just as I know by THEIR style of writing, and choice of words, that THEY are who they say, and represent themselves.

I walk a line, between being accused (on one hand) of being too technical, and trying (on the other hand) to speak in layperson's terms, so I get screwed eaither way, I cannot win, for trying too hard, I cannot win for not trying hard enough???

Cut me a break, please!!!!

Some of the big bosses here, at ATS, have vouched for my identity, I don't think I need to go through that again and again, for every new member's satisfaction.

YOU have been given certain status as well, based on the monikers under your ATS screen name, in the avatar .... I've never went through it








s



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


SKL.....you have your finger on the problem I face....because you can 'Google" so much, nowadays, I can't say anything without being accused of simply 'Googling' it for myself.


Okay, so if you are facing that, then why accuse others of it?

I use Google, Yahoo, Wikipedia, to add to the depth of my thoughts.

Does this mean I know nothing of the topic?

No.

It means I knew enough to know what to go searching for to elaborate for others.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
HOWEVER, there are things I know, and have written, that OTHERS here at ATS can read, and know that I know, just as I know by THEIR style of writing, and choice of words, that THEY are who they say, and represent themselves.

I walk a line, between being accused (on one hand) of being too technical, and trying (on the other hand) to speak in layperson's terms, so I get screwed eaither way, I cannot win, for trying too hard, I cannot win for not trying hard enough???

Cut me a break, please!!!!


Believe it or not, this is me cutting you a break.

I will never accuse you of being too technical nor you being a dis-information agent.

Notice, I attack the "Official Story" and question the "Truther Movement"?

I am above taking cheap shots like calling into question someone's credibility.

I will however call into question their actions and behavior because actions speak louder than words.

The whole "dis-information agent" sleight to me is distasteful and a cheap shot.

I know there are those on ATS who do fit that bill though and I let them continue their job.

I have read about them through various sources offline and online and calling them out on that just makes a person a fool, so I do not question someone like that, I just watch and observe.

And never forget their name or actions because I have been on the receiving end of character assassination, something I find funny as Hell now, and I do not do that because it is more fun to me to let those people discredit themselves.

I love to learn which is why I asked for links, whether we see eye to eye, will be based upon our independent interpretations of that information and education levels.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Some of the big bosses here, at ATS, have vouched for my identity, I don't think I need to go through that again and again, for every new member's satisfaction.

YOU have been given certain status as well, based on the monikers under your ATS screen name, in the avatar .... I've never went through it


I am not one of those people who finds it necessary to go to ATS Administration.

Not for verifying information about a members qualifications.

Usually I err on the side of caution about my own actions.

No, you are correct, you do not necessarily have to go through that for newer members.

But, remember, even seasoned veterans, like you and I, will see what is going on.

And I am someone who will step in, whether it is asked of me or not, to fight for the little guy.

Regardless if I am a Moderator or not, I am a bully buster, and the underdog is my favorite.

Believe it or not, I choose to fight, for the underdog, usually because they have no idea how to fight off a more aggressive person, and by my posting what I am here within this post and thread, is me fighting for you.

So, I will ask of you, on my threads at least, to remember, be an example of what to do, not an example of what not to do.

As for those titles, I did not have them given to me, I earned them.

Remember, weedwhacker, even you were new to ATS as well as your profession.

Same as myself or anyone else, and new people need a good example.

Respect, it is earned, never given, and responsibility of earning it is giving it without thought of return, regardless of how other people treat you, live by the golden rule.

Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done Unto You.

You just never now who is watching your actions or how they will be interpreted.

I am a trainer, and a natural born leader, and I see both of those in you.

What I see however is that you do not like being challenged for your knowledge.

This is something no one appreciates but some of us enjoy elaborating about it.

Like I have told you several times, I like you, you do make me think.

What I would like though is since you are a veteran member to show that.

Is that a deal?

David had only a sling and a few stones and killed Goliath with one shot.

So, by me respecting you here, I am showing you that you can be David, and slay your own Goliath through "Deny'ing Ignorance".

[edit on 26-1-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join