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: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems
www.journalof911studies.com...




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by MrWendal
I love the people who claim this is all bunk.... seriously, what do you think a predator drone is? Its a remote controlled aircraft.

Designed to act as one.

Passenger jetliners is an entirely different ballgame.


"On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base
(Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing
to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake."

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Know what? You can post the original plans on here and the same lot will come in and say it's bunk. The remote tests are documented and all of the shills in the world cannot change that fact!



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Laugh out loud!!!!!

IF you really sink your "faith" into this nonsense...then by all means, go ahead.

I can only laugh at your post, and the person you quote...to say that an autopilot could NOT be counter-acted by Human intervention???

It's...well, only way to describe is...It''s Nonsense!.


How would you know it's nonsense?

Are you an avionics technician with access to classified military technology?



No, he's just a lowly 757/767 typed retired pilot for a major airline. What the hell would he know? However, I am an avionics technician working for an airline with the largest fleet of 757's and 767's in the world, and I conclude that the OP is......


...nonsense as well. I've explained my reasoning in numerous posts upthread; as well as in a related paper I wrote many years ago. Oh and I don't just make unsubstantiated claims, I explain why I conclude what I do.

Unlike PFT and truthers in general, I welcome anyone to take my writings on this topic to any unbiased(read: non-debunker/non-truther) expert source (read: airline pilot with 757/767 rating or avionics tech with training and experience on the same) for vetting and accuracy. I've listed some forums upthread where such individuals are known to be found.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Know what? You can post the original plans on here and the same lot will come in and say it's bunk. The remote tests are documented and all of the shills in the world cannot change that fact!


Read for comprehension. No one here has stated that planes can't be flown remotely. We've said that they can't be overtaken remotely. Big difference, wouldn't you agree?

There were no pilots aboard this test aircraft to override the remote control system, which didn't use the autopilot anyhow, which makes it doubly moot(I just made up a term - tw00fer style!) as an example.

Oh and it missed its target as well.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


My reply, which I figure you didn't like is the truth regardless of what many including yourself wish to think.

Facts are, remote tests were done before 9/11. Thats about the jist of it. And all of the side comments in the world won't make it go away.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Say what makes you feel good about yourself. The facts are that the testing was done well before 911. Saying it didn;t is a lie. Like the OS.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
WHat people keep leaving out and calling just debris and floating trash is the laser designator reflection off the buildings and smoke

Possibly something similar to a DAMOCLES target designation pod combined with a NAVFLIR imager.

But I don't mind if you continue to say it was a reflection off aluminum foil , or off debris or a window etc. It's not my country.

So on that note...Yea it or Nay it whatever...



[edit on 13-7-2010 by superluminal11]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


It is continually astonishing the depths people will go to, in these fantasies.

The disinformation/and just plain BAD information...shows that when you throw enough mud at the wall, it will make a pattern that just about anyone will see something in....regardless of facts, or science.

It is a modern-day inkblot test.... :shk:

Example: That YouTube video....starts with (of all things!!) regular household remotes that use IR (which is a frequency in the EM specturm our eyes CAN NOT perceive unaided, as is pointed out) and jumps to a most outrageous "conclusion".

Then, the true failure of science and rational thinking, is to suggest that an "IR Laser" would be visible to the camera, and then the human eye, in the video. Nonsense.


The disinformation stems from the very easy-to-Google-fact that (airplane in the video, United Airlines 175) was tracked on radar for the entire time, from the hijacking, to the impact.

(Of the four hijackings, this was the only airplane where the suicide terrorist pilot chose to merely change the transponder code frequency, rather than turning off --- selecting 'STBY' --- the actual transponder control head, on the center pedestal. Result: The ATC computers dropped the flight plan info associated with the original four-digit code. However, the ATC personnel were smart enough to continue tracking, since the transponder was STILL squawking in Mode C, just on another code. Easy,,,easy, to see, and re-assign a new designation, manualy, in the ATC computers).

Hence, United Airlines 175 was seen all the way, on radar, along with the normal "coast-mode" tracking as it was passed from facility to facility, and also, because of the Mode C trnasmitting, altitude information was being sent, and was seen and recorded.

Shame....the disinfo artists that infest this topic prefer to omit this bit of data....


I find it particularly compelling, in the DISINFO game, that yet another attempt has been started, recently...trying to cast doubt on the VERY EXISTENCE of any airplanes at all!!!

***I speak, of course, of, yet again, continued (and completely wrong) recent efforts put forth by the so-called 'pilots4truth'....long, long ago shown to be inept, incorrect and just plain wrong. AT EVERY TURN***

****Not wishing to incite a "board war"....but, really...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!****


It continues to devolve into inanity....

SO....we have ONE "camp" trying to claim that there WERE big jets (disquised UAVs, of all things!!) so that means they were definitely there, and travelling at a high velocity....BUT, then we have the OTHER "camp" trying to say it is "IMPOSSIBLE" that they were real airplanes of ANY kind!!!

It would be comical, if it wasn't so ham-fisted messed up...AND if the topic weren't so serious.

It is disgusting, really....the denial that has grown up, that has diminished and demeaned the memories of the victims. With these ever-increasingly nonsense "fantasies"...(they don't even qualify as 'theory'.....)



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


This has been a continued claim....will you (FINALLY, this is a multiple request) please rpvide your citations for this??

AS POINTED OUT....the B-720 example, from 1984, invovled an entirely different concept of R/C. A true unmanned flight, of a comercial jet...that was NOT technolgically or electronically advanced.

It was an R/C system purely added on, hydro-mechanical, and was NOT incorporated into the auto-flight system.

mikelee, either you are out of your depth, here, or seriously misinformed --- and have fallen victim to that misnformation. I do not blame you, nor doubt your sincerity...as you are the victim, and probably truly cannot know the difference, from a technical aspect.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Your unrelenting hounding of a point that is mute in this case only makes you appear weak and desperate. Go get some for God's sake.



posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 05:07 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com... :


Weedwhacker : I have told you, you are skewing together your material, and it is causing you some confusion...dig deeper, get the longer-term CSV data from United 93's DFDR, to include the time from gate departure in Newark, and co-ordinate the time references on THAT to the ATC time stamp references from Newark Ground Control and Local Control transmissions.


We would like to see you prove to us please, how it is possible at all, that there are great differences in timestamps as you propose in your quote above, in the period from UAL93 Newark take-off time, until start of the 30 minutes endless looped CVR (cockpit voice recorder) and the period DURING the 30 minutes recording loop of the CVR.

See my post about NO discrepancies AFTER the hijack event at 09:31:55, between Captain Clocked timestamps and outside sources timestamps (FAA controllers AND the ACARS) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The fact that the ACARS messages timestamps, before and after the hijack event, do not differ, is telling something, don't you think so? Because if you are right about big discrepancies during normal flight in timestamps, then WHY do they not turn up in the ACARS?
Either the first normal flight part, or the hijacked part of the DFDR or/and CVR is thus tampered with.

I think you have just proved to yourself that your official story-trusted stance is based on a big fat official Whacker (a giant official LIE).

That hijack-period covered in the CVR, does not show any significant discrepancies between the Captains Clock controlled devices, and any external time measuring devices (ACARS, FAA controllers logbooks) EXCEPT that seismic stations (plural!) and FAA controllers all say that the plane crashed 3 minutes later (10:06 AM) than the officially pushed timestamp of 10:03 AM.

When you discovered great timestamp discrepancies in that first period from take-off at Newark until the hijack event, during which ONLY the original pilots were at the controls, than YOU have proved to us that the CVR is tampered with, since that one does not show up for sure, any significant differences between Captain's Clock and outside sources.

And I know, one of the other Trusters will contemplate to come up with the excuse that the first deed of the hijackers, after overtaking the plane, was to reset the Captains Clock.
Do you mind, when I sincerely doubt the sanity of anyone coming up with that excuse, when I would be confronted with such a lame excuse?
It would show up in the DFDR. Which it doesn't.


www.abovetopsecret.com... :


Weedwhacker : To put it simply....there is NOT a "remote control" system in existence that cold not be over-powered by a human, at the controls, exerting his/her will and dominance and authority.


How many minutes, do you think, would it take an unexperienced pilot, like one of the hijackers, or a knifed and thus severely wounded original pilot who's brought back on the controls, to over-power a build-in "crash-the-plane remote control" system?

Keep in mind that I do propose a simple model of such a system, which is only meant to "kill" the airplane in case of a non-planned event, like a passenger revolt.

Thus a system only working a short time, maximum a few seconds to minutes, to make sure that the plane crashes. No remote video cameras involved, just plain and simply aim the plane into the ground.

For instance by locking the steering mechanism in a diving-down position, and if any cables are involved, by just mechanically locking these cables with a very simple but strong device.

See your own remark just above :


Weedwhacker : AS POINTED OUT....the B-720 example, from 1984, involved an entirely different concept of R/C. A true unmanned flight, of a commercial jet...that was NOT technologically or electronically advanced.

It was an R/C system purely added on, hydro-mechanical, and was NOT incorporated into the auto-flight system.



I do remember plane crashes which repeatedly happened for one model, where the investigators could not replicate the locking of the tail fin rudders, which caused several planes to spiral down and crash worldwide.
The poor pilots who could not regain the control back did all die included all passengers, until the FAA crash investigators at last got to a plane with the exact anomalies happening during flight, where the pilots were so lucky to get the plane back in their control.
Only then did they manage to find the cause of this problem, something to do with a sudden reversal of the tail fin horizontal and vertical rudders under icy conditions, if I do remember it right.

[edit on 28/7/10 by LaBTop]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
www.abovetopsecret.com... :

~~~~

See my post about NO discrepancies AFTER the hijack event at 09:31:55, between Captain Clocked timestamps and outside sources timestamps (FAA controllers AND the ACARS) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Look....I have TRIED, many times, to explain this to you. It is up there (I didn't pull everything and re-quote it, out of your post, since this thread is so slow, it's likely right there if you scroll up).

Going to the linked post of yours, above....I selected this as the pertinent part:


Originally posted by LaBToP

I'll explain that for you.
NTSB = ATC transcripts = no captain's clock connection.
CVR = Voice recordings from the cockpit = with captain's clock connection.

Open both links in your browser, one beside the other.


(Obviously, I didn't copy the links from the post...will fix on edit, for convenience). OK, edit complete, on those links.....
~~~~~


THOSE TWO links show exactly what I've been telling you.

The NTSB link (one that, BTW, I have used often) uses the time reference FROM THE ONBOARD FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS! Which, as I have continually pointed out, got their time reference from the Captain's clock.

Those times, in what the NTSB printed as the CVR transcript, come FROM the CVR, and not from the FAA ATC time reference.

Obviously, the other link, labeled 'CVR', is just another transcription, FROM THE SAME SOURCE!! (The CVR). That is why there's only the slight ~two seconds difference. (That second link was prepared for the Moussaoui [sp?] case, by Government prosecuters. THEY may be responsible for those few seconds' differences, since they transcribed FROM a transcription, if you get my drift....)

As I keep trying to point out, you must find independent transmissions, with time references, FROM THE GROUND, and referenced to the GROUND time keeping.

There seems to be a miscomprehension, here, for laypeople.....about how the various time references are sourced, and WHICH sources are used, on which documents.

We (well, you....and the "Pilots For Truth", who have already shown themselves to be rather sloppy in their investigative techniques) are talking about at MOST three minutes' discrepancy, and insisting that is somehow significant???

It is SUCH a non-issue, it is easily attributable to minor time-setting differences, as I've mentioned. AND, I am uncertain as to the POINT being raised, both by you, and by the "PFT".

"They" (PFT) dangle this screaming headline ("United 93 still airborne three minutes after alleged crash!"), or some such verbiage, in order to trump up DVD sales and website traffic. It is full of innuendo, but thin on facts....THEN< in their "presentation", go on to acknowledge that the ATC personnel lose radar contact, indicating that the airplane did indeed crash --- it is on the ATC recording transcripts themselves, that "PFT" provides!!!

The "radar contact lost" bits....that's aviation-speak. Standard terminology. WE understand what it implies. Because, recall....they (ATC) were tracking a primary target, THEN a beacon code was received and displayed, for just a few minutes --- to include Mode C info....(this has led to the supposition that Captain Dahl may have still been alive in his seat, though gravely injured. His widow, upon hearing the CVR, and certain comments, is convinced he was attempting to influence/inhibit the efforts of the hijacker pilot. IF Capt. Dahl was still conscious, it would have been easy for him to select the transponder back to 'on', as the terrorists were distracted by the passengers' uprising in the cabin, just outside the cockpit door).




You also bring up the ACARS. You don't seem to realize that Dispatch may send an ACARS text message...and there can be a delay in time before it is transmitted to the airplane! Not always, and no way to be certain, UNLESS we can also get records from ARINC.


OK...I'll walk you through it. YOU are the dispatcher, and at your terminal there in Chicago, you type in an ACARS text message to your flights. (I will assume that he did a sort of "blast-mail" to every flight he was currently responsible for, don't know how many that is, at that time, that day. Dispatchers may track a half-dozen or more, simultaneously...depends on workload, time of day, staffing, etc).

SO, YOU, the dispatcher, sends the ACARS text message "BEWARE COCKPIT INTRUSION". It goes from your terminal, once you hit "send", to the ARINC router system, and then into a queue, to eventually be transmitted to the appropriate airplanes.

This may occur nearly instantly, or there may be a slight time delay.

Savvy? It's isn't much dissimilar from ANY email you are familiar with....someitmes it's very fast, sometimes it lags a bit --- matter of seconds, maybe minutes.

So....the ACARS, while a good over-all indicator of the timeline, isn't going to be your exact "Johnny-on-the-spot" to the second reference.










[edit on 30 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
At last found this thread back, where I knew I had to address something important.

I think you are the one who is mistaken.


Wheedwacker : THOSE TWO links show exactly what I've been telling you.

The NTSB link (one that, BTW, I have used often) uses the time reference FROM THE ONBOARD FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS! Which, as I have continually pointed out, got their time reference from the Captain's clock.

Those times, in what the NTSB printed as the CVR transcript, come FROM the CVR, and not from the FAA ATC time reference.

Obviously, the other link, labeled 'CVR', is just another transcription, FROM THE SAME SOURCE!! (The CVR). That is why there's only the slight ~two seconds difference. (That second link was prepared for the Moussaoui [sp?] case, by Government prosecuters. THEY may be responsible for those few seconds' differences, since they transcribed FROM a transcription, if you get my drift....)

As I keep trying to point out, you must find independent transmissions, with time references, FROM THE GROUND, and referenced to the GROUND time keeping.

There seems to be a miscomprehension, here, for laypeople.....about how the various time references are sourced, and WHICH sources are used, on which documents.



There are CVR copies solely from the FDR, and there are copies from a mix between the CVR and the FAA ATC recordings, verified via the FAA timecode reader.
I addressed the mix and showed the discrepancies.

NTSB : Air Traffic Control Recording :
www.ntsb.gov...

First read the first 3 pages, the Summary.
Then look at its page 13 from 16, the last communications with UAL93.
It says crystal clear :
""End of transcript
times verified via FAA timecode reader.

NTSB : Flight Path Study UAL Flight 93 :
www.ntsb.gov...
C. SUMMARY : ""based on data from the FDR, recovered from the crash site, as well as radar data from the FAA Air Traffic Control Centers, and the U.S. Air Force 84th RADES (RADarEvaluationSquadron).""

And please, go find that NTSB "Time Correlation Report" mentioned on page 3 of 38 here :
www.ntsb.gov...



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired
Wow remote controlled planes, this is scary no doubt.

We've had remote control technology for jetliners since at least the mid-80's:





The remote controlling of the planes on 9/11 is not out of the question.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


And, if you would do more research, ratherr that rely on that one (known, already) instance of that one experiment, then you'd have read about how the flight actually FAILED, at the last moments there.

Watch the video again....watch the airplane. See it as the remote pilot is starting to lose control?

The original plan was to have it hit, wings level, straight ahead and then continue on into the 'cutters' to rip open the wings.

If you'd bother to find some archived articles about it, from magazines such as Aviation Week and Space Technology, for example, then you'd understand better. I remember that I (we) read about it, because we found it interesting. BUT, the exact details, from those long-ago articles, aren't firm in my memory after all these years. It was VERY, VERY complicated, the retro-fitting of that airplane, and involved a great deal of work.

The stock Boeing airliner doesn't roll out of the factory just "ready" to be altered like that.

To try to posit (as it seems you are doing) that FOUR (!!) were all done....what, in 'secret' somehow? And NO ONE since, not one of the literally hundreds who would have had to have been involved has said anything since? It's beyond ludicrous to even contemplate seriously.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Wheedwacker, search for the German National Airline which was pressed by the Bundes Abwehr and the Bundes Kriminal Amt, to change all the software on their Boeing's, when these contra intelligence agencies found out that US origin remote control software was build in in their whole Boeing's fleet.

They exchanged all the US control software for their own open source software.
Same goes for all German government institutions, all Windows systems were changed to their own proprietary open source operating systems.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

Absolutely hilarious.

Do tell us, who created the open source software that Lufthansa allegedly was forced into using?



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


That user friendly software from that hilarious worldwide effort to counter all kind of greedy nut-jobs who keep their source code hidden, so we never get the chance to check where all these agencies back-doors are hidden in it. Microsoft, rings a bell perhaps?

The friendly Penguin rings a bell?

And then they used THAT truly open software framework, and added their own proprietary parts, so they were sure it was safe to use only by them.
They re-wrote the compromised Boeing software, using that open source basic skeleton, and left the hidden US remote control part, out of their own re-written source code. And of course added some security features in their own version, to protect the pilots from ever have to suffer something like that crazy idea, to secretly hide remote control software written by those crazy paranoid American coders.
However, as usual these American agencies will have used coders from India, Japan, Taiwan or China to do their job, they just buy them away when they are in their last months on their homeland universities.



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
See this thread of mine,
WTC 7's compartmented demolition collapse sequence reveals human intervention.
my last post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Looked again, and suddenly all pieces fell in place for me.
willyloman.wordpress.com...

That could be part of the solution why UAL93's transponder signal re-appeared on the radar for a short time, 3 minutes, after the FAA controllers thought it had gone down already.

This author thinks that UAL93 was shot down, and me too.
As opposed to what some in this thread thought :


And that it changed its direction in the last minutes of its flight, straight to Manhattan and WTC 7, which was now unobstructed, because the last obstructing tower, the North one, had also collapsed. That was the moment UAL93's hijackers got word that they could at last set the autopilot for New York, and that illogical waiting period by the hijackers to overtake the plane had ended.
But then they got shot down.

My proposal for the miracle appearance back on the FAA controllers screens of UAL93's transponder signal, for three minutes more than explained in the official story of UAL93, is as follows :

Very early in all 911 research, the first Pilots for Truth members came up with a very intriguing thesis, that all planes were switched for "Operation Northwoods" type shadowing planes, in the same color scheme as the original ones, in spots where the Main radar had dead spots, no coverage at all. They had nice drawings, which explained the dead spots clearly. It was exactly as proposed in the sixties, for the Operation Northwoods false flag event which luckily never happened.

So, when we adhere to such a viable probability, what would have happened, the moment the REMOTE pilots of the shadow plane had switched their radar identification transponder back on, which was an exact copy of that of UAL93, just a few moments before the same signal of UAL93 disappeared, since the "hijackers" had switched it off, as ordered by their CIA?Mossad?NWO?Bankers? backers?
But then suddenly one or more missile(s) out of nowhere shot UAL93 out of the air! And the CIA planners saw it happen, through their drones flying around on their "battlefield". As witnessed by Susan McElwain...!

They panicked, probably, and were discussing fiercely with each other what to do, and then at last decided to shut the shadow plane's transponder off again, and sent it back to its base, as low as possible, or wreck it in the Atlantic.

Thus, are these extra three minutes that ""UAL93"" was still in the air, an indication that they changed all planes in mid air, by flying above or under the original planes, so that their radar image became one, in radar dead spots?
And then the original one dived away, and flew under the main radar back to their individual Bases, with their original transponders off, and the shadow planes flew to their targets with their copy transponders on.

This could also explain Mrs Tailor and her sister, and Mr Peterson's witness reports on video, that they all three saw a VERY low flying plane, about 50 FEET HIGH, looking exactly as UAL93, a decoy plane, over the junction in their little village, just 1.5 miles north of the impact crater of the real UAL93.
But the NTSB data given to the public had the original UAL93 flying about 4,500 meters above that same junction!!!

DAMMIT!
They saw the decoy plane, which flew so low, to keep it under the radar! And that one flew on, while UAL93 went down just 1.5 miles further. And it flew upside down since some very cocky but full of adrenaline remote pilots were having a field day showing off what they were capable of. Or a list of any other reasons.

Now all pieces fall together for me, and I hope for a few more people.
Pilots, what do you think, is this the solution for all these years bickering over conflicting witness accounts?
And conflicting NTSB data, with stubbornly held witness accounts!

I think so.

Please dive deeper into this scenario, link all the known witness accounts to this new thesis, and see if now, everything fits much better than before. I see in my mind lots of witnesses and OFFICIAL data suddenly fill the space where I could not fit them in before.
Yep, I'm a bit excited. Who not..!?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join