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.
Originally posted by seethelight
So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.
Originally posted by System
If you say 99% of the worlds engineers believe the official story, then you're including all the engineers that have no opinion or have done no research into the events.
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.
Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.
Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me.
The FAA can remotely fly planes without pods? Really??
If that is the case then how come the FAA has NEVER saved a plane from crashing in the past? One would think if this technology goes back to the 60's many lives would have been saved already!
Never-the-less the pictures taken by a spanish photographer and analysed at a spanish university in barcelona seems quite convincing to me. I don't even need a special analysis to see SOMETHING is protruding from the planes belly.
In any case, I DON"T UNDERSTAND why some people need to be SO RUDE in pushing THEIR CASE against other truthers who are EQUALLY DETERMINED in getting justice served. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE, SO JUST RELAX A BIT!
Yes I agree, we DON'T need to speculate AT ALL what happened that fateful day, but since government is so paranoid about doing a new impartial investigation, the only natural thing left to do is speculate.
Perhaps concerned citizens will uncover the truth themselves rather than wait ad-infinitum! I read your entire post and I agree for the most part.
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.
Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me.
The FAA can remotely fly planes without pods? Really??
If that is the case then how come the FAA has NEVER saved a plane from crashing in the past? One would think if this technology goes back to the 60's many lives would have been saved already!
Never-the-less the pictures taken by a spanish photographer and analysed at a spanish university in barcelona seems quite convincing to me. I don't even need a special analysis to see SOMETHING is protruding from the planes belly.
In any case, I DON"T UNDERSTAND why some people need to be SO RUDE in pushing THEIR CASE against other truthers who are EQUALLY DETERMINED in getting justice served. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE, SO JUST RELAX A BIT!
Yes I agree, we DON'T need to speculate AT ALL what happened that fateful day, but since government is so paranoid about doing a new impartial investigation, the only natural thing left to do is speculate.
Perhaps concerned citizens will uncover the truth themselves rather than wait ad-infinitum! I read your entire post and I agree for the most part.
Short answer; Yes.
Long Answer; YYYYEEEEESSSS
FAA emergency landing procedures: Engage Autopilot
Also, Raytheon has a full patent application to totally remote a plane.
Why on earth would you need a "pod?" There is plenty of room and radio equipment already inside the plane. The idea of adding something to the plane for reception or control on the outside makes absolutely no sense to me -- I can't think of a benefit. If there were a pod, it might have been used for something else.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A plane cannot be flown remote-control style from outside the cockpit without additional gear such as an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the Flight Control System. I have been a virtual FS pilot for over a decade and as such I know all or most of the basics that non-pilots don't.
Just one question here. You claim that it needs an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the FCS. How would you identify these heavily modified electronics within the FCS from outside the plane?
Originally posted by REMISNE
2. The British have a system in one of the Tornado fighters that can take over a airliner by remote control.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Just one question here. You claim that it needs an external pod OR heavily modified electronics within the FCS. How would you identify these heavily modified electronics within the FCS from outside the plane?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
What? I was asking a legitimate question about the things you stated as fact. Is that a sin now? Why did it upset you? What does your response even mean? I am simply asking a question about the technicality of your statement. You just lashed out with a nonsense deflection about obits? I have no clue what to say other than I guess you realized what was so incredibly wrong with your statement and now you are afraid to even address it.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I am simply asking you why you claimed that the plane cannot have invisible remote control systems because it would need an external pod OR ADVANCED ELECTRONICS INTEGRATED INTO THE FCS. Apparently you misstyped. That is ok, it happens. You do not have to get mad at me for pointing it out. I was genuinely just asking. I guess if that sort of thing is going to upset you, make sure what you post makes sense from now on.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Do I have to address an obvious question such as yours? The answer is nobody would notice internal changes but it seems fair to assume you were insinuating that the aircraft were actually bonafide flights, which no one can prove anyway.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Do I have to address an obvious question such as yours? The answer is nobody would notice internal changes but it seems fair to assume you were insinuating that the aircraft were actually bonafide flights, which no one can prove anyway.
Well you did since you seemed to be refuting the post above yours about how easily they could be remote controlled. I could have been wrong but then, that is why I asked. Now where exactly did I insinuate anything? I think you are lashing out at the wrong person. Are you trying to claim that there is a chance they were not the flights we were told they were?
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Yes that is EXACTLY what I am claiming! When somebody shows me a passenger list of the supposed victims and the corresponding obituaries I will retract my speculation and give you an apology.
Until then we have ACTUAL PHOTOS showing something hanging from the plane's belly as crucial circumstantial evidence along with the fact that NO EVIDENCE exists for a super-stealthy AP.
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Why on earth would you need a "pod?" There is plenty of room and radio equipment already inside the plane. The idea of adding something to the plane for reception or control on the outside makes absolutely no sense to me -- I can't think of a benefit. If there were a pod, it might have been used for something else.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by K J Gunderson
Well that is what happens when you don't make your points clear and concise. In any case I apologise for over-reacting and assuming things that do not apply!
Here is what the above poster said:
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I was not making any point. That is your problem. You seem consumed with the idea that I am making some point of one kind or another. Let me try this one last time. I WAS SIMPLY ASKING A QUESTION.