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.

 

Whistleblower Reveals

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I know, I said no more thread posting for me in here but I found this interesting and thought many of you would as well. Especially the remote plane crowd. Later...Mike Lee


Wayne Anderson, an Avionics Technician is interviewed by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Wayne reveals his observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to "Lockout" the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot system in order to regain control of the airplane. The following interview discusses the details of this test which was performed prior to September 11, 2001, the violations of FAA regulations and the possibilities using such technology.



Source: Here





[edit on 5/26/2010 by mikelee]




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Even though it says testing was done that does not in any way confirm that any of the planes on 911 were remote controlled into anything. But I'm sure this would be enough to add to the conspiracy fire for those that believe it was the case. I do think that there was one government type that said there were no such tests performed prior to 911. This would at least refute that claim.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
So are you saying that the collision and the resulting fires from the plane impacts actually DID bring the towers down, it's just that the planes were flown into the buildings by remote control rather than by a suicide attack?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Wow remote controlled planes, this is scary no doubt.
It would perhaps explain the accuracy of the so called inexperienced piolts espescially at the pentagon.
Has any actual body parts been found at the WTC or Pentagon belonging to the crew?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
nowadays they can control and they use it with military aircraft, so it is possible that they did have a system in place in case of a terror threat but actually used it to create a terror problem instead of avoiding one ...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


No Dave, I'm not saying anything. Again you resort to put words in the mouths of others. I merely posted a story, nothing less nothing more.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Expired
 


To the best of knowledge none have ever been allowed to be shown publically as was the bodies of those discovered inside the Pentagon. Contrary to what some misinformed folk say, those photos were documented as workers at the Pentagon rather than crew or passengers.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   
In one of The Lone Gunmen episode they fly remote controlled planes into the twin towers.

Edit:



[edit on 4-6-2010 by TheLaughingGod]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 


I miss that show!



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Prebunked

From my article above, written many years ago. Basically, this is how to defeat a "remote takeover" of a mechanical driven airplane.

For Mr. Anderson's claim, just swap ACARS(really the more sensible option) with ATC below.


- Pull the FCC circuit breakers (3 places). This will give pilots control of the airplane by pulling power to the autopilot computers.
- Pull the FCC Servo Power circuit breakers(3 places) . This will remove power from the autopilot servos.
- Pull the ACARS MU circuit breaker(1 place).
- Pull the FMS circuit breakers(2 places). This will stop the ARINC data from entering the FCCs.
- Isolate the Left and Right Main AC Busses, and switch the Generator Control Switches "off" one at a time, until control is regained.(ACARS is powered by the L AC bus) Autopilot can still be used.
- More drastically, the crew could opt to drop both AC busses offline and fly on Standby Power. This would kill ACARS but not the FCCs or FMS. Same effect as above.

It could be argued that all these breakers can be interlocked by simply cutting the wiring going from the breaker to the FCC's/FMCs/Servos and supplying new wiring, possibly from a nearby terminal strip or circuit breaker on the same bus. But I'm not really sure that would make a difference, considering the last 2 options above, and I don’t know how the new feeding breakers would take the extra load. They'd probably open(pop).

However, lets assume for a moment that our saboteurs are really, really sharp and modified ACARS, the FCCs, and FMCs to receive power from all busses, including the Standby DC bus. ...... All that aside, pilots can still defeat the system quite easily.

- Start pulling every circuit breaker in the flight deck, until control is regained. Or...
- Switch both Generator Control Switches "off", Switch the Standby Power Selector to "off", Switch the Battery "off"

The latter halts every moving electron in the aircrafts wiring. There will be side-effects to such drastic measures.
Specifically, no control over pressurization or air conditioning; this might be a bad thing at altitude, but not catastrophic. Limited engine control, but nothing too major. No operative fuel pumps, not disastrous because thirsty engines can be suction/gravity fed. Most of the hydraulics will still be working, the EDPs pull most of the load anyways. Since the airplane is cable driven, there will be no control problems. So we have: 2 working engines, 2 working hydro systems, and functioning flight controls - that's enough to limp home with.
The problems I mentioned above wont be devastating if the crew descends quick after killing power. Hypoxia would not be an issue, at all, because whatever position the Cabin Outflow Valve(pressurization control valve) was in prior to loss of power, would be where it stays when power is removed. So cabin pressure wouldn't change until a descent started. At that point, this is where the Negative/Positive Pressure Relief Valves come in. These devices will dump excess negative/positive pressure before dangerous pressure levels are reached. These valves have no electrical connections, they are fed by pressure sensing lines and operate mechanically.

The engines on 757/767s are FADEC, which means they are essentially fly-by-wire engines. No mechanical linkage goes from the flight deck to the engines for control, it is all electronic. So how are we going to control the
engines with no power....? Well, the engines EEC's still have power because they have their own power supplies, which can't be turned off(as long as the engines are turning).

Now, if you are thinking that I cant possibly be correct about killing all electrical power and still being able to fly the airplane, there is a precedent.




Basically the whistleblower's(lol srsly?) claim is a load of hooey. I can explain why in more detail if anyone is interested.

BTW, thanks for posting this mikelee. I had searched the forum earlier to see if there was a discussion about it.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
All the large aircraft are fly by wire these days, the pilot no longer moves any of the control surfaces manually.
It is only an extension of the autopilot and instrument landing system that already exists to guide a plane anywhere remotely. You don't need a pilot anymore.

All these unmanned drone aircraft the military are now using these days show the technology is both reliable and mature to do this.

Flying an airliner into a target with nobody in the cockpit is no big deal, everything is already there to do that.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


An eqaul thanks to you as well! Great info and links



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So are you saying that the collision and the resulting fires from the plane impacts actually DID bring the towers down, it's just that the planes were flown into the buildings by remote control rather than by a suicide attack?



I am. Remote is the ONLy answr. ALL the other far fetched and ludicrous excuses fail the smell test terribly. You have to assume so many far out scenarios and odds so fantastic that no rational observer could possibly believe the official lie.

Check out the thread: How were the cockpits taken? by EW86 and try and come up with a way that 2 small men could instantly enter, assault and kill/ or convince the pilots to leave, get them out and under control, and assume the controls and fly with ' military precision' to the Towers.

No one so far has come up with a LIKELY and PLAUSIBLE way they could have done it. The government doesn't even TRY and touch this subject as it is a smoking gun. Remote flying is OLD news, and this report just confirms many others.

The Official Story Cultists must rely on blind faith as well as a remarkable ability to ignore facts and evidence. Like lemmings, they follow the oficial line totally....perhaps their imaginations cannot handle such a reality....perhaps they are just obtusive and stubborn and want to argue despite having no debating skills, or maybe they just are paid to dissuade the truth.

In any event, if you read the thosands of testimonials by the best and brightest, at patiotquestion911.com you will realize that if you are being lulled into nonsense by the neocon crowd it is time to break free.

9-11 was an inside job, the highjackers were all fall guys, like Lewin, and remote control is the ONLY explanation that makes sense given the facts.

If you want to believe in superhuman arabs then the official story is the one you need.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
All the large aircraft are fly by wire these days, the pilot no longer moves any of the control surfaces manually.
It is only an extension of the autopilot and instrument landing system that already exists to guide a plane anywhere remotely. You don't need a pilot anymore.

All these unmanned drone aircraft the military are now using these days show the technology is both reliable and mature to do this.

Flying an airliner into a target with nobody in the cockpit is no big deal, everything is already there to do that.


Two things I want to get cleared up from this post. The 757 and 767 are mechanical aircraft, not fly by wire(hard to tell from your post whether you're aware of this). But more importantly, what the OP is *specifically* dealing with is a "remote takeover", a takeover of an airline flight in progress, not a remote controlled flight from start to finish. I think we can all agree that modern jets are fairly autonomous and its fairly easy in theory to convert one to be "remote controlled" in the traditional way, that is, no pilots or passengers on board. But thats not what the OP is dealing with.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Would be nice if you did us (and yourself) a favor and please actually read the thread, and the posts once in a while...instead of just the headline.

Here, THIS one is a good one, it's important that you take some time, and read very, very carefully.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you have further questions, or need help clarifying somethin, just ask. Plenty of people here can help.

[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Just to flesh this out for the other readers (because I know that you know this, already)...I've said this dozens of times, but first time in this thread:


The 757 and 767 are mechanical aircraft, not fly by wire(hard to tell from your post whether you're aware of this).


The cables that are attached to the control columns and rudder pedals and the Speed Brake handle and Flap/Slat Handle in the cockpit are routed down into the area in the wheel wells, in the fuselage. THERE they actuate various bellcranks, levers and such that control the hydraulic valves that THEN port the hydraulic pressure out to the various control surface actuators.

This is over-simplified, of course.

For instance, more details can include:
(Flaps/Slats also have an alternate means of extension....extend ONLY for Slats, via an electrically-driven small hydraulic pump, and ELECTRIC motors are an alternate method to operate trailing edge Flaps. AND, for emergency procedures, when in ALT FLAP MODE, we don't extend the Flaps all the way to 30 degrees. A bit taxing on the electric motors).

But, you guys aren't here to get a Type Rating....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh....and now that I've had a chance to read more carefully, I went back to visit the 'link' from the OP...

Hoo, boy. Ole Rob Balsamo is at it again, I see.

Consider the "source", I say....consider the "source"...


[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Just to flesh this out for the other readers (because I know that you know this, already)...I've said this dozens of times, but first time in this thread:
(snipped)



Right. Pretty hard to have some kind of rogue software takeover(as with the OP), or remote control takeover, when the primary flight controls operate independent of electronics and/or software. One day richierich may figure this out, but first he'll actually have to start reading replies.

Also worth pointing out that autopilot doesn't use the same actuators to move control surfaces as the manual flight controls. The autopilot uses 3 dedicated servos(3 each for the elevator, rudder, and ailerons), all with their own mechanical linkage to the control surface. So it's not like an "e-hijacker" could use the autopilot system to interfere with, or negate, the manual controls. They are totally and completely independent systems and the only common component is the control surface itself.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
No Dave, I'm not saying anything. Again you resort to put words in the mouths of others. I merely posted a story, nothing less nothing more.


Ah, I get it now. You're bringing this "remote controlled planes" bit to drop innuendo and make accusations of conspiracy without actually coming out and making them. This way when someone calls you on it, it gives you plausible deniability and you can say, "That's not what you said and it's really all our fault for misunderstanding you." You've consciously engineered this bit to be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Tell me, in all honesty, why do you truthers complain that the rest of society isn't taking you people seriously when you're blatantly playing dishonest mind games exactly like this?



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


No and yet again, your picking a verbal fight with someone who is only the messenger here. Sorry though, I have better things to do than bite at your feable garbage.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
No and yet again, your picking a verbal fight with someone who is only the messenger here. Sorry though, I have better things to do than bite at your feable garbage.


Normally you might have gotten away with this pretend-obtuse behavior...but you made the mistake of naming this thread, "Whistleblower Reveals". BUSTED!

If you don't like my pointing out that you're dropping innuendo and spreading rumors, then don't drop innuendo or spread rumors. It ain't a trick question, guy.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join