It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:12 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Every point you've raised?

Very old (and already completely debunked) claims.

(Except that Warren Stutt DID access and show additional seconds from AAL 77 DFDR. What did that accomplish? Not only did it blow CIT and their ludicrous "North of Citgo" nonsense out of the water, but PfT also....with their 'flyover'. Actually, BOTH camps were in bed together, on this...for a while. Hear they're divorced, now...).

The UAL 175? Still not seen what you've claimed to see....I've seen about all there is, I think. Only thing that you might have mistaken for a 'spiral' is the fact that some videos clearly show UAL 175 descending, in its run towards the Tower. THIS, of course, makes sense...because it's the only way to have built up the airpeed shown in the final seconds. The pilot does steepen his angle of left bank, also...but that's about it. He was in a turn, whilst aiming at his target, and he tightened his turn, as he got closer, because he could see it was off a bit...

I am surprised, though, that someone of your obvious intelligence would have been fooled by all of the UAL 93 junk. The few 'eyewitness' (people who couldn't tell a Hoover from a fridge, is more likely) who are simply mistaken. Quite common....and you mention DiMaggio? Again, a fraud, and lie peddler. Does DiMaggio interview ANYONE who actually DID see UAL 93? No, only the ones that he wishes to include, in order to promoete his "story".

Oh, and wind noise on the UAL 93 CVR...well, at the airspeed shown from the DFDR, the wind noise would be very loud....but, I haven't heard the ACTUAL CVR....have you??
That would be very incredible, given that it is not to be made public.....

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Weed , please review this link and give us your take on it , if you don't mind .

It is an analysis of how it was perfectly possible for a pilot with limited flight-skills to have crashed into the Pentagon in the manner in which he did .

Lot of good info there , in my opinion .

Don't know jack about all this , but find this guys' analysis pretty convincing .

It discusses Fly by Wire , Flight Management Computer System (FMCS) , Digital Air Data Computer (DADC) , Autopilot Flight Director System (AFDS) , and control surfaces of the plane , in relation to how IT WAS possible for the hijacker to do what he did , with limited flight skills .

Thanks .

[edit on 6-6-2010 by okbmd]

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:14 PM
Shanksville Eyewitness Viola Saylor

Damn! All links are dead!
And those were all of my drawings and maps.

Just view the OP post video with Viola.
That plane she saw was flying a few FEET above the tree in her backyard!

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:01 PM
A shout from the past, after I basically talked to myself for several posts, I came up with this on page 2 of the above linked thread about Viola :


A few observations:

This is a CONSPIRACY site.

I am basically talking to myself here, obviously there is no interaction going on at all.

I offer a few very compelling EYE-witness reports of a very low flying plane passing Lambertsville junction, which is 1.25 miles from the official flight 93 crash crater. It flew about 100 feet high, or 30 meters high.
However, the black box data given to the NTSB, place the same plane MUCH higher in the sky above that junction! About 1.25 KILOMETER high.

Conclusion: the black box data are FALSIFIED.
If so, we talk about a HUGE CONSPIRACY, but no one reacts, on this conspiracy board.....
Conclusion: this is not a conspiracy board at all, or no more.

I offer a few reports of scrapyard workers who report a plane flying upside down at 12 meter above their heads, then dive into the ground 300 meters further away.
If that's true, we would have seen a hundred meters long sliding scar in the ground, and not a small round mystery hole with two small side scars filled with essentially nothing, as reported by first responders (""only charcoal left"").
There was NO ROOM to ""nosedive into the ground under an angle of 40°"" as reported by the media and official sources.
At 12 meters high, the plane could have only slightly dip its nose, and it would have touched the ground already.

Conclusion: something stinks in the official Shanksville story, and it stinks like a cover-up.

So, where are you, conspiracy seekers on-board?

I still stand by my remarks.

There is something substantially wrong with this 911 forum.
Solid eyewitnesses reports are neglected, no official story Truster dares to react anymore on such solid proof of malformations in officially offered flight data.

And this seems to be the overall technique at this forum, just abandon all opposition to a good, solid thread, and thus let it die down as fast as possible, and to top it off, post as many drivel posts as possible in a short period after the last solid proof posts, in other double and triple facts-from-the-past repeating threads by fame seeking new members, who seem to take all the good posts from the past and post them again as newly discovered facts. That way they bury the good threads in a very short time to the end of the first page of the Forum Topic List.

It's getting disgusting to no end.
98 % of the topics posted in the last few years are repeats of what was posted already years ago by the hard core nucleus of Truth seeking members and their opponents here.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
ummm, hey....the antnnas for a remote control are larger and sometimes painted orange and can be seen on the undersid.....oh, gotta go....

No, don't go! We won't bite! I imagine there is a reason you posted this tidbit..can you enlighten us. It's like you were about to make a point before you suddenly typed "gotta go" and hit the reply button. Go ahead and make it.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:29 PM
I kinda figured that the discussion would migrate toward plane swaps. I don't really want to spend too much time on that because it's ridiculous.

1) The four flights primary radar returns were recorded for the entire duration of their flights. The gaps that get talked about pertains to the ATC controllers displays. The radar returns were recorded the whole way.

Individually... AA11, AA77, UA175, UA93

2) The FDR's were recovered from Shanksville and Arlington.
3) DNA was recovered from all the passengers and crew at the scenes.
4) All other 757s/767s ever built are accounted for.

Any theory about plane swaps has to explain the original flights. They have to explain why they took off normally, made normal radio calls until reaching cruising altitude then went silent and were never seen or heard from again. I haven't seen a single coherent thesis put forward to explain any of the above.

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

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:40 PM
I suppose he realized we once discussed that a C-130E would have these type of antennas fitted to its outer skin, to be able to steer on-board (wing-under) remotely controlled drones.
I do not remember we ever talked about remote-control antennas fitted on 757's or 767's.

You obviously are a flight engineer and can offer lots of technical jargon.
Please for once, try to read those two pages and view Viola's interview from the OP.

Then give me some solid opposition. Without all the techno babble, since there is no need for it :

NTSB : 1.25 km high at a mile from the official impact spot.
Multiple eyewitnesses on the ground : 100 meter to 12 meter high from a mile to 300 yards from impact.

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:20 PM
Weedwhacker :
The relatives were allowed to hear the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder).
They told us years later, after they started to doubt the lies from their government too, that the last minute or so only wind noise was to be heard, which probably means a broken window, and that suppressed all human conversation of course.

Btw, I also invite you to give solid opposition to all the EYEWITNESSES who saw the 93 plane at a totally different height than the NTSB relieved FDR data wants us to believe.

About your "Very old (and already completely debunked) claims. "
Could you redirect me to any thread where the North of CITCO eyewitnesses are "debunked"?
To my knowledge, these fine individuals are NOT debunked at ALL.

Besides, I had a frontal a month ago or so, with Craig Ranke's mate, forgot his name, sorry; where I told him that the only individual who they base their fly-over theory on, Roosevelt Roberts, definitely does not give a description of a returning flight 77, but only of an incoming flight 77.
The chance that flight 77 impacted the Pentagon is very high, but not at the official angle, but at a near 90° angle, and its debris did not get further than the first ring. The rest of the northernly internal damage is artificial.
The chance that flight 77 flew over the Pentagon is very small in my opinion, but it is not zero.
They (CIT) should have given the raw facts from the NoC witnesses, and not their own conclusions. That way they offered all of the Trusters a nice sidestep to avoid the, damning for the official flight path, witness accounts.

Btw, as you can see with your own eyes, Dominick did interview eyewitnesses who actually saw flight 93.
If I were you, I would not trust all feeds coming from the JREF forum.

767doctor :
How on earth do you come up with your plane swaps? I did not indicate anything about swaps.

Btw, your UA93 link perfectly shows in their Altitude Profile that the NTSB thinks that Flight 93 flew over Viola's house at the junction at an altitude of about 8,500 feet at 10:02:52 (see my post ), while Viola and her sister, and several others mentioned by me in that page, saw it at about 100 feet high over their heads.
Do you agree that's a ridiculous DIFFERENCE of thousands of feet between officially released data, and solid EYEWITNESSES accounts?

Is there not a shimmer of doubt growing in your mind yet?

Note this link too then :
United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar.

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:43 PM
On a side note, 93 is officially down at 10:03 but 10:06 is the "real" down time. It could have flown further too, under the radar when you see the following ATC's dialog.
I made a mis-type with my 10:06 and 10:08 earlier on. So sorry.

At 10:06 ATC lost radar contact with 93.

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right

Now remember that the NTSB says 93 was down at 10:03 !

(10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy


ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right

That's THREE minutes passed the official down time, and all we know from these ATC's is they lost radar contact at 10:06, which does not necessarily mean that 93 was down too !

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:54 PM
Found back that info, btw posted by myself, on aerial antennas on planes capable of remote control of drones :

LaBTop :
In this link, there are quite a lot of numbers, heights and planes named:

FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said Saturday that a civilian business jet flying to Johnstown -- about 20 miles north of the crash site -- was within 20 miles of the low-flying airliner, but at an altitude of 37,000 feet.
Crowley also said there was a C-130 military cargo aircraft about 17 miles away flying at 24,000 feet when Flight 93 crashed. The military plane had no weapons on board. Crowley said he did not know where it was coming from or going, but said its crew reported seeing smoke or dust near the crash site.
Recovery teams found the plane's cockpit voice recorder just after sundown Friday.
The plane's flight data recorder was discovered Thursday.

Btw, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley was also involved in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. I have posted extensively on that in this forum and on another site I linked to. Search and you will find.

I now remember clearly what I heard in the audio link provided by Boone 870, that the flight controller clearly stated to a colleague that he had ordered already all planes in the vicinity down, except JUST ONE, the military plane.

First a small Cessna within 3 miles of 93, which pilot was asked if he could see the plane to verify location, and then was 'immediately' told to leave the area.

So, how come the flight controller didn't see that business plane flying to Johnstown Airport on his radar scope?
And neither the Falcon business jet reported by news media, to be found on the History Commons pages I linked to? That's the Warren Buffet owned business jet that followed flight 93 for a substantial period of time.
As you can read in those pages, there clearly were TWO business jets around flight 93.

And what about the E-3 Sentry AWACS plane alongside two F-16s in hot pursuit of flight 93.

And the little white drone with van-like proportions reported by Susan McElwain? (Too low probably, to have been shown on FAA radar.)

It seemed to have been quite busy above Lambertsville and Shanksville, while we only hear ONE military plane mentioned in that audio snippet from the FAA flight controller.

May I repeat a snippet of info I provided already at this crucial moment in my thought process :

Airborne electronic warfare consists of three major players forming a triad of capability. The EC-130H Compass Call, EA-6B Prowler and F-16CJ Fighting Falcons suppress enemy air defenses while jamming communications, radar and command and control targets. Compass Call is in demand with all unified commands, and therefore, subject to worldwide deployment in support of operations on very short notice.

1. That's a C-130 which could have easily been a disguised EC-130H, you can only spot the difference if you are an experienced plane spotter, and then from nearby. It has two small pod like antennas at each side under the tail wings, and a few short antennas sticking out of it at various places. I have posted big photos of the EC-130H somewhere in this forum, use the Search function.

2. That's a white Prowler which could have easily been the white plane reported by Viola Saylor, after she saw the supposed flight 93 nearly hit her Oak tree in her back garden, passing over her house to the south.

3. That's two reported F-16 Fighting Falcons, which make the picture complete.

There was an EMP effect registered at the moments around the crash of flight 93, cell tower equipment had to be replaced weeks later, the electrical power grid was outed and land-line phones went dead.

Anybody has another explanation than an EMP effect except the lame excuse of overloaded telephone grids during 9/11.(What about the Cell tower equipment destroyed? And the electricity?)

Regarding the electricity :
regarding the outed cell tower :

See also my next post there :

It could have been seriously possible that an EA-6B Prowler, btw they are white painted, did use an EMP at 10:03, which fried all electronics onboard flight 93, thus causing the 3 minutes silence in the recording of the CVR.
And caused the outage of cell phone tower equipment in the crash area.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Valhall, your statement about the EC-130 got me thinking. I think that having an EC-130 in the area, manned and ready to take off at the exact time necessary to intercept Flight 93 over an open countryside is a little bit too much of a coincidence. However an EA-6B Prowler has the capability to do pretty much the same thing that you have the EC-130 doing.

Now for the interesting part. There are TWO EA-6Bs based at the Naval Air Test Center at Pax River, Maryland and guess what else? They are both painted WHITE!

An EA-6B would have the speed necessary to intercept Flight 93 and its jamming would be capable of causing the blackout and communications disruptions.

As you can see, we are repeating all kind of stuff we have covered long ago already.
I hope we need not going to repeat all of this ad infinitum.
It would be nice to have new members using the Search function a lot more intensely.

For now, it's wise to read all posts on this page 12 :

EDIT: it just struck me : the same effect can be seen in this page 12 thread again.
Nine posts of mine full of substantial information, and no reaction anymore from our local Trusters.
But also not from our Truthers....
What psychological effect could this be? Information-Overload perhaps?

[edit on 7/6/10 by LaBTop]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop

I still stand by my remarks.

There is something substantially wrong with this 911 forum.
Solid eyewitnesses reports are neglected, no official story Truster dares to react anymore on such solid proof of malformations in officially offered flight data.

The problem with eyewitness testimony is that's its practically worthless unless it's corroborated by physical evidence. There have been oodles of studies done on the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the conclusions are always the same. It's unreliable, and frequently the witness(es) get every important detail wrong. There is also the fact the there is usually only a tiny percentage of witnesses who have the knowledge or experience to correctly interpret what the see. People also have the tendency to exaggerate and over simplify what they witness.

So, you'll excuse me if I simply disregard the story of one witness and instead go with the convergence of evidence.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by 767doctor]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 02:24 AM
You say ONE witness.

I posted multiple eyewitnesses.
Viola and her sister, Eric Peterson their neighbor, the scrapyard workers. All report a very low flying plane.

And then we have this History Commons Flight 93 timeline account from two other witnesses :
Witnesses See Flight 93 Rocking Wings as It Slowly Descends.

(Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Flight 93 Rocking Wings as It Slowly Descends

In the tiny town of Boswell, about ten miles north and slightly to the west of Flight 93’s crash site, Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry notice a passenger jet lumbering through the sky at about 2,000 feet (608 meter). They realize such a big plane flying so low in that area is odd. They see the plane dip its wings sharply to the left, then to the right. The wings level off and the plane keeps flying south, continuing to descend slowly. Five minutes later, they hear news that the plane has crashed. Other witnesses also later describe the plane flying east-southeast, low, and wobbly. [New York Times, 9/14/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 205-206] “Officials initially say that it looks like the plane was headed south when it hit the ground.” [News Channel 5 (Cleveland), 9/11/2001]

Entity Tags: Brandon Leventry, Rodney Peterson

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight UA 93, Shanksville, Pennsylvania

This does not fit member "767doctor" UA 93 pdf he posted above at all.
Certainly not the textual description of the last 5 minutes of 93, and not at all the UA 93 Altitude Profile drawing. That drawing shows the plane going up from 5000 feet to more than 10,000 feet, then sharply falling down to earth. See points G to H, then crashing down.

Just look at all the other eyewitnesses I posted on this page 2 :
and don't forget to view the embedded YouTube videos with Flight 93 eyewitness accounts.


And then we have the ATC small talk. Flight 93 last known position miles away from the "crash" site, and 3 minutes after the official "crash" time of 10:03.

And the little white drone seen by another female witness. Just before she heard an explosion and sees a cloud rising behind the trees which blocked her sight of the "crash" site.
The military does not send drones to unknown places, they knew where to send it far before a "crash" occurred.

[edit on 7/6/10 by LaBTop]

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 05:11 AM
Now connect the ATC small talk from the Pilots for Truth link to this History Commons link, their 911 Timeline :

10:02 a.m. September 11, 2001: Cockpit Voice Recording Ends Early?
Edit event

The cockpit voice recording of Flight 93 was recorded on a 30-minute reel, which means that the tape is continually overwritten and only the final 30 minutes of any flight would be recorded. The government later permits relatives to hear this tape. Apparently, the version of the tape played to the family members begins at 9:31 a.m. and runs for 31 minutes, ending one minute before, according to the government, the plane crashes. [Longman, 2002, pp. 206-207; CNN, 4/19/2002] The New York Observer comments, “Some of the relatives are keen to find out why, at the peak of this struggle, the tape suddenly stops recording voices and all that is heard in the last 60 seconds or so is engine noise. Had the tape been tampered with?” [New York Observer, 6/20/2004]

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight UA 93

9:31 plus 31 minutes ends at 10:02, which officially was 1 minute before the crash. Thus the crash officially occurred at 10:03.

And yes, I remembered wrong, it was no wind noise but engine noise recorded in that last officially released minute.

Now we dive in the long flight 93 time-lines I pulled up from History Commons site :

This is the one with the above link in it :
10:06 Flight 93 Crash.

10:02 911 Commission CVR.

10:02 a.m. September 11, 2001: 9/11 Commission Later Details the Moments before Flight 93 Crash
Edit event

According to the 9/11 Commission, a Flight 93 hijacker says, “Pull it down! Pull it down!” The airplane rolls onto its back as one of the hijackers shouts, “Allah o akbar! Allah o akbar!” The commission comments, “The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them.” Presumably the plane crashes seconds later. [San Francisco Chronicle, 7/23/2004] However, there are questions as to whether the voice recording actually ends at this time. Furthermore, there is a near complete disconnect between these quotes and the quotes given in previous accounts of what the cockpit recording revealed (see (9:57 a.m. and After) September 11, 2001). For instance, in other accounts, passenger voices saying, “Give it to me!,” “I’m injured,” and “Roll it up” or “Lift it up” are heard just before the recording ends. [Observer, 12/2/2001; Newsweek, 12/3/2001; Longman, 2002, pp. 270-271; MSNBC, 7/30/2002; Daily Telegraph, 7/31/2002]

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight UA 93

Now comes the most disturbing entry from this time-line :

Different official crash times for Flight 93, up to 7 MINUTES differences!.

(10:03 a.m.-10:10 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Flight 93 Crashes; Seven-Minute Discrepancy on Exact Timing of Crash

Exactly when Flight 93 crashes remains unclear. According to NORAD, Flight 93 crashes at 10:03 a.m. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001] The 9/11 Commission gives an exact time of 11 seconds after 10:03 a.m. It will claim this “time is supported by evidence from the staff’s radar analysis, the flight data recorder, NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analysis, and infrared satellite data.” It does note that “[t]he precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
However, a seismic study authorized by the US Army and drafted by scientists Won-Young Kim and Gerald Baum to determine when the plane crashed will conclude that the crash happened at 10:06:05 a.m. [Kim and Baum, 2002 pdf file; San Francisco Chronicle, 12/9/2002] The discrepancy is so puzzling that the Philadelphia Daily News will publish an article on the issue, titled “Three-Minute Discrepancy in Tape.” This notes that leading seismologists agree on the 10:06 a.m. time, give or take a couple of seconds. [Philadelphia Daily News, 9/16/2002] The New York Observer will note that, in addition to the seismology study, “The FAA gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. In addition, the New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one FAA facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m. Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. However, as [former Inspector General of the Transportation Department] Mary Schiavo points out, ‘We don’t have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second.’” [New York Observer, 2/15/2004]

Entity Tags: North American Aerospace Defense Command, Mary Schiavo, 9/11 Commission, Won-Young Kim, Gerald R. Baum, Federal Aviation Administration

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

Category Tags: All Day of 9/11 Events, Flight UA 93, Shanksville, Pennsylvania

This is another timeline regarding Flight 93 :
Search Flight 93.

It gives different results, less entries. So you better follow links to other 93 entries in this one, then you automatically enter much broader timelines as the one above.

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by okbmd


I'll respond to your query, and will forego any more irrelevant disussions about UAL 93 anymore, in THIS thread...since nothing brought forward, of late, has to do with "remote control" fact, if anything, the posts merely refute it, and reinforce the fact of the hijackers' being at the controls.

Since this thread IS about "remote control" (already explained as nonsense) your question and link about AAL 77 and the Pentagon helps to confirm this assessment.

However, I have read that did mostly focus on the question asked concerning "ground effect", likely due to the (erroneous) assumption, apparently asked by a Private Pilot type, that the phenomenon would have interferred with the low-level final few seconds of AAL 77, prior to impact.

The article explains it well, and finishes with this bit, which I include for emphasis:

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006

[edit on 7 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:29 AM
Wayne Anderson is the focus here NOT the guy doing the interview. I knew a few of the usual's in here would get the thread off track as they usually do. But the guy is a trained avionics professional and speaks well of what he knows.

Like it or not, its the facts.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by mikelee

Sorry, but you saying "like it or not, it's the facts" isn't anything but hot air...

Oh, and it is VERY on point to discuss the 'interviewer', since it has been well demonstrated that he has an agenda...of deceit.

But, BACk to 'Wayne', what he presented were not "facts", and this thread has alrteady been presented with the evidence to show. Too bad it was ignored -- so, here it is again:

Oh, should reference the post, too:

767Doctor's post from page one of this thread.

[edit on 10 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:16 PM
Ran across this...

And we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe, and for example including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control

Bush said that, 2 weeks after 9/11.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

That website you reference also has an agenda. If you don;t like the source of the article, there is other sources with confirmation of what he says that are factual for those such as yourself who want information from MSM only. I suggest you do the search and find them.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:58 PM
Also ran across this, pretty interesting.

Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners

Boeing last week received a US patent for a system that, once activated, removes all control from pilots to automatically return a commercial airliner to a predetermined landing location.

The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:28 PM
reply to post by ThaLoccster

Sorry...that's old news...look at the date, 2006.

It is, as the article says, still only a patent. People come up with ideas all of the time, and when they meet the qualificatons of the PTO, the US Patent Office will grant a patent number, to lock in the idea.

It DOES NOT mean they must have a working prototype, NOR does it mean they are actively implementing such technology.

This very article has been brought up before, here on other ATS threads. Looks good, at first...but if you really understand it, then it becomes less exciting.

WHAT it is intent is, really, IN CASE another 9/11 type hijacking event occured (unlikely, but still...supposedly). The (hope) is, and the entire concept relies on this, the hijacking pilots wouldn't have the systems knowledge to be able to defeat the devices.

On the other hand, REAL airline pilots DO know how to maintain control, regardless of any sort of "anti-hijacking" device installed.

I thought all of this was already thoroughly covered right in this thread?? By 767Doctor??

[edit on 10 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in