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.

 

The 9/11 Time Discrepancy Oddity: Distress Signals Indicated Planes Crashed Minutes BEFORE Flights 1

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Rest assured, most theories in the 9/11 truth movement are checked, rechecked, researched and re-researched.


Since when?

Most "theories" seem to be result of misinformation combined with paranoia or scams like David Ray Griffin or
Alex Jones (who are nuts to boot)

And why are the no plane cretins still running around?




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Most "theories" seem to be result of misinformation combined with paranoia or scams like David Ray Griffin

That's nice of you to talk about an established PhD. like that. Where's your PhD. again?



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


ELT is highly survivable actually, much like the FDR is. If it wasn't, it would kinda defeat the point of having on installed.

It may have been doing 450 MPH at impact but the whole thing did not stop moving. Deceleration rate wouldn't be all that great considering.

Don't forget the experiment in the 50s where the guy strapped himself to a rocket, accelerated himself to 640 MPH and stopped dead in 1.3 seconds. He survived to continue his research.

www.youtube.com...


edit on 12-9-2010 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



Riiiiight........



.....Now, having said that, do not take "weedwhacker"'s word as law and fact, or anyone else's word for that matter. Do your own research


Indeed.

I DO hope people take the time to follow the RESEARCH, not only in the links I provided....

....another idea is to spend the DECADES I have in experience.....oh, wait.....some here don't have 'decades' to spend, in time, in order to impart the vast knowledge...and thus, the experience that MANY bring to these Boards, for discussion......

What a shame........



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


Yes, but....


ELT is highly survivable actually, much like the FDR is.


Would you please read, up-thread????

The ELT is NOT....I repeat, NOT installed on airliners....as a rule.

SO, THIS thread (like many on the topic) is just one of many that has no merit....sorry.




edit on 12 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: BB Codes



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
....another idea is to spend the DECADES I have in experience.....oh, wait.....some here don't have 'decades' to spend, in time, in order to impart the vast knowledge...and thus, the experience that MANY bring to these Boards, for discussion......

Hey Weed, with your decades of vast knowledge and experience, maybe you can explain what happened to those four flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders that were supposedly never recovered from the WTC wreckage, even though a FDNY firefighter and rescue worker claim that three black boxes were found and turned over to the FBI.

And while you're at it, why don't you tell us how often the FDRs and CVRs are never recovered?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
From Aviation online magazine......

24, 2010 - Distress radio beacons, also known as emergency beacons, ELT or EPIRB, are tracking transmitters which aid in the detection and location of boats, aircraft, and people in distress.

Most aircraft today are equipped with an ELT operating on a frequency of 406.0-406.1 MHz that interface with Cospas-Sarsat, the international satellite system for search and rescue (SAR). When activated, such beacons send out a distress signal that, when detected by non-geostationary satellites (A non-geostationary satellite is one where its position relative to the Earth is not fixed), can be located by trilateration.

There are still a number of aircraft mostly older aircraft that have onboard their aircraft ELT’s that operate on a frequency of 121.5 MHz. Up until October 2000 Cospas-Sarsat had been monitoring this signal but because of accuracy and false alerts the signal was dropped. At present aircraft operating on 121.5 MHz are still being monitored by air traffic control and pilots.



From Honeywell...

Honeywell has been a leading supplier of emergency locator transmitters(ELT) for more than 25 years. More than 30,000 ELTs have been delivered to airlines worldwide. Honeywell is also a qualified ELT supplier to Airbus and Boeing.

Or..
Federal Aviation Regulations

Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) require aircraft to be equipped with an ELT. Specific requirements are detailed in FAR 91.207. ELTs are required for all aircraft having more than one seat, with some limited exceptions.

Or..
Aviation International News

Any business jet operator who plans to fly internationally after the first of the year should be finished by now installing two ELTs that transmit on 406 MHz, at least one of which is automatic. That’s because under a JAA requirement and separate ICAO standard, most large civil airplanes must be equipped with ELTs that transmit on 121.5 MHz and 406 MHz simultaneously–or with one automatic 406-MHz unit–when operating on long over-water flights and two ELTs in Europe, Russia and elsewhere.

Weedy...

It appears that what you wrote is completely wrong...



Was that "decades of experience" and " vast knowledge" you bragged about also the honest truth weedy??????

I'm having doubts about your sincerity here ........not the first time either .....I think youve just been caught out again!!

Thats the problem with disinfo bud.....when you get caught out, everybody sees it....and any credibility you may have cultivated, goes right out the window....



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



That's nice of you to talk about an established PhD. like that. Where's your PhD. again?


Grifin has PHD in Theology - explain how that is relevant to disccusion on fire protection systems in WTC , structural engineering, aircraft crash investigation?

Griffin is rendering an opinion - an opinion based often on misinformation, deception and faulty logic tinged with conspiracy paranoia. You are aware that Griffin was into JFK Conspiracies before WTC became his new bugaboo.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
You are aware that Griffin was into JFK Conspiracies before WTC became his new bugaboo.

You are aware that E. Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession to his son that LBJ and the CIA assassinated JFK:

The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt


One evening in Eureka, over a barbecue meal, St. John explains how he first came to suspect that his father might somehow be involved in the Kennedy assassination. "Around 1975, I was in a phone booth in Maryland somewhere, when I saw a poster on a telephone pole about who killed JFK, and it had a picture of the three tramps. I saw that picture and I f***ing -- like a cartoon character, my jaw dropped, my eyes popped out of my head, and smoke came out of my ears. It looks like my dad. There's nobody that has all those same facial features. People say it's not him. He's said it's not him. But I'm his son, and I've got a gut feeling."

"By the time he handed me the paper, I was in a state of shock," Saint says. "His whole life, to me and everybody else, he'd always professed to not know anything about any of it. But I knew this had to be the truth. If my dad was going to make anything up, he would have made something up about the Mafia, or Castro, or Khrushchev. He didn't like Johnson. But you don't falsely implicate your own country, for Christ's sake. My father is old-school, a dyed-in-the-wool patriot, and that's the last thing he would do."

So much for your "conspiracy paranoia" silliness...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Dude.....read back on ALL of my posts, before you embarrass yourself with false claims about my info. Pay attention tot he link I provided to the Airline Pilot magazine (the official publication of ALPA) and the article from year 2000/2001.

YOUR info, in your post, is referring to the situation TODAY....and is not relevant to the situation in September, 2001.

This is the problem with the lay public.....trying to understand, and MIS-comprehending the context, and details.

Experience matters..........



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Paging Captain Weedwhacker, Captain All-Omniscient Weedwhacker, there's yet another question that you failed to answer.

Since I wouldn't want to MIS-comprehend the context of your vast and glorious experience, I trust that you'll entertain my humble inquiry about what happened to the WTC black boxes and the historical precedent of this happening.

Regards,

~Lowly Lay Public

[edit] 3:20 PM -- Member (weedwhacker) is on ATS now.
Evasion noted.





edit on 9/13/2010 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Maybe he flew off into the sunset...???


So Cap'n weedy....you are saying the strange signals are just the pilots(or one of the "terrorists"...) "testing" the ELT or accidentally activating it???

And, out of curiosity, why do you think the ELT's failed to activate upon impact, as designed to do???

Do you not find this odd???

Suspicious perhaps???

Interested to hear your take on this mystery.....

PS
And weedy...in my defense, you said ....
"The ELT is NOT....I repeat, NOT installed on airliners....as a rule. "

It actually IS.....as a rule.

This is a present tense statement you made, yet now you insist you meant 2000/1....perhaps you need to improve your use of Tenses, given youve mastered all things avionic ??



and I preferred your original avatar!!

( meant to be taken totally non-confrontationally...)


edit on 13-9-2010 by benoni because: Forgot weedy's PS...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Sorry....I was leaving you, and GF time to read the entire thread. It isn't that long, and your questions are addressed.

But, to specifically point-by-point refresh the circumstances:



So Cap'n weedy....you are saying the strange signals are just the pilots(or one of the "terrorists"...) "testing" the ELT or accidentally activating it???


Firstly, what "strange signals"?? ATC personnel, and pilots (and if you'd linked to the audio file I offered already, YOU too) know what an ELT signal sounds like....it isn't "strange", except maybe to those who are ill-informed.

Secondly.....again IF anyone bothers to follow along regarding the information provided in this thread, the airliners on 9/11 (AAL 11 and UAL 175) did NOT --- I repeat, did NOT have an ELT installed. Either one of them. SO, second part, the inane part (intenionally baiting?) of the question is moot.


And, out of curiosity, why do you think the ELT's failed to activate upon impact, as designed to do???


See above.


Now, this next? Serious?? You going to attempt (what, out of desperation?) this game of semantics, distraction, and distortion by nitpicking over tenses???



....And weedy...in my defense, you said ....
"The ELT is NOT....I repeat, NOT installed on airliners....as a rule. "

It actually IS.....as a rule.

This is a present tense statement you made, yet now you insist you meant 2000/1....


...(deleted smarmy additional comment, as it is unnecessary --- as anyone who reads up-thread will no doubt see for themselves)....



FAR 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters
(a) “Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S. registered civil airplane unless-“
(1) “There is attached to the airplane an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter...”,

Note: Per paragraph (f): (a) does not apply to (1) Before January 1, 2004, turbojet-powered aircraft;
(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
and (11) On and after January 1, 2004, aircraft with a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds when used in air transportation.


eltrequirements.homestead.com...

Please, do try to keep up!








edit on 14 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Emoticons? Don't format properly anymore...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


You're right...I DID intend to answer, but forgot, in doing something else:


Hey Weed, with your decades of vast knowledge and experience, maybe you can explain what happened to those four flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders that were supposedly never recovered from the WTC wreckage, even though a FDNY firefighter and rescue worker claim that three black boxes were found and turned over to the FBI.


"Supposedly" never recovered??? They were not located, in all that mass of debris and rubble. Would have been a bonus, for sure. If for no other reason, than to shut down this other nonsense and "debate".....but, given the track records of the "truthers" regarding the THREE recovered, and readable, Recorders that do exist, probably would just be more of the same ole'.....

OH....I see, "supposedly" because of an Internet rumor, unverified, from two anonymous FDNY FF and SAR workers??? Were they the only two people on site, at that moment?? I mean, NO ONE ELSE saw these two people carrying the four large (have you seen the pictures?) boxes?? "Intact" boxes? In all that rubble, and somehow ALL FOUR (from the two different buildings) were found by THOSE two people??? What, were all four lying together, side-by-side?

Honestly, what won't people believe, anymore.....



And while you're at it, why don't you tell us how often the FDRs and CVRs are never recovered?


Well, obviously crashes in deep ocean. THOSE boxes, themselves, will "ping" --- for about a month or so, until batterires die. (That's one reason an ELT was exempted from Part 121 air carrier airplanes, for so many years...that, and the whole point of the ELT is to assist in finding an airplane, whereabouts unknown. ALL commercial passenger flights are "flight followed" by the Dispatcher, from take-off to landing. Their whereabouts are hardly in question. Sure, days before GPS and SAT links and such, the area might only be known generally, if the airplane is lost when out of radar contact, but the radius of the search could be focused early, and quickly, based on what they could follow, as part of the FARs and requirements).

There have, also, in extrememly energetic other crashes been instances where the "boxes" (or, maybe just one) had disrupted data, FROM the impact. They aren't totally indestructible, ya know. (Note AAL 77's CVR, for instance). Don't have those other cases committed to memory, but I know how to search.....

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

BTW, have had Lauda Air 004 on my mind lately. A B-767-300, lost control in-flight as a result of an uncommanded reverser deployment, #1 engine. (Don't worry, plenty of changes were made to the systems that control the reversers to preclude that from happening again. It was a fairly freak occurence, in aviation history).

Anyway, in terms of the method of break-up and such, it would appear vaguely similar to PanAm 103, or TWA 800 (although no exposions occured, in Lauda's case). So, impact patterns and such were similar, if in different terrains.

Interesting to note, of course the debris was limited to a radius relatively easy to search (even though in a jungle) and both recorders were physically located (since, they didn't have a 110-story building fall on them), still the FDR was unreadable:


After collection of the wreckage, it became clear that the aircraft had broken up due to excessive buffeting and excessive control forces. The FDR had been destroyed in ground fire, but the CVR was still readable and confirmed the investigator's findings.


www.pilotfriend.com...

Really, every airplane accident has a certain element of "uniquenss" about it, even when in general they all share one common trait: Hitting the ground.









edit on 14 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Added ex link



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Then weedy I suggest you improve your grammar...I did not play semantics with you.....its what you said....you need to keep up grammatically, otherwise people here would have to double guess exactly what it is your intent....

Given you spoke in the present tense it is only natural that you would mean the present tense...

As for playing semantics, when I mentioned the "strange signal" you reply with a completely deflectionary response....it was strange, not in sound, but in the fact that it began pinging prior to impact....the primary ,PRIMARY purpose of this thread( please take note of the Title of this thread if you are confused...)

Therein lies the strangeness weedy....but I suspect you knew that all along....


As for "smarmy" comments, your the Heavyweight Champ my little friend!!


Still prefer your old avatar.....



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, obviously crashes in deep ocean. THOSE boxes, themselves, will "ping" --- for about a month or so, until batterires die. (That's one reason an ELT was exempted from Part 121 air carrier airplanes, for so many years...that, and the whole point of the ELT is to assist in finding an airplane, whereabouts unknown. ALL commercial passenger flights are "flight followed" by the Dispatcher, from take-off to landing. Their whereabouts are hardly in question. Sure, days before GPS and SAT links and such, the area might only be known generally, if the airplane is lost when out of radar contact, but the radius of the search could be focused early, and quickly, based on what they could follow, as part of the FARs and requirements).

There have, also, in extrememly energetic other crashes been instances where the "boxes" (or, maybe just one) had disrupted data, FROM the impact. They aren't totally indestructible, ya know. (Note AAL 77's CVR, for instance). Don't have those other cases committed to memory, but I know how to search..... [more paragraphs of blah, blah, blah removed]

Sure was a wordy response to an easy question.

Why can't you state a simple truth without couching it in obfuscation and irrelevant verbiage?

From History Commons:


While all of these bodies and plane parts are supposedly found, it will be claimed that none of the four black boxes for the two aircraft that hit the WTC are ever found. A National Transportation Safety Board spokesperson later says: “It’s extremely rare that we don’t get the recorders back. I can’t recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders.” [CBS News, 2/23/2002] The black boxes are considered “nearly indestructible,” are placed in the safest parts of the aircraft, and are designed to survive impacts much greater than the WTC impact. They can withstand heat of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for one hour, and can withstand an impact of an incredible 3,400 G’s. [ABC News, 9/17/2001] However, in 2004, it will be reported that some of the black boxes are found in the weeks after 9/11, but their discovery is kept secret (see October 2001).

www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=penttbom



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


You forgot to include the narrative just prior to the snippet about the Flight Recorders, from that section of "History Commons":


Some gruesome remains are discovered in the World Trade Center ruins:
Investigators find a pair of severed hands bound together with plastic handcuffs on a nearby building. They are believed to have belonged to a flight attendant. [Newsday, 9/15/2001]
Honorary firefighter Michael Bellone and two other recovery workers discover the body of an attendant from American Airlines Flight 11. Reportedly, the men’s digging efforts reveal “a blue skirt, then one side of a body, and finally a pair of wings still attached to the lapel of a woman’s jacket.” [Swanson, 2003, pp. 140; Daily Standard (Grand Lake), 9/11/2006] Other reports describe the discovery of the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound. Presumably they are referring to the same remains. [Guardian, 9/13/2001; New York Times, 9/15/2001]

There are reports of whole rows of seats with passengers in them being found, as well as much of the cockpit of one of the planes, complete with the body of a suspected hijacker. Police cannot confirm these reports. [Ananova, 9/13/2001; Guardian, 9/13/2001; New York Times, 9/15/2001]

Fire Lieutenant John McCole sees a body bag with a tag on it saying, “Possible Perp—pilot.” McCole later comments, “I found it pretty amazing that someone’s body could remain so intact after crashing through a skyscraper into the middle of an inferno.”


It then goes on to mention the Recorders. Still, it is (the website) documenting ALL of the comments, and speculations that surround the event. It is trying to be unbiased, as they take pains to point out.

That's why there seems to be no citation for the "claims" in 2004 of the boxes' being "recovered".

(Isn't that story related to the guy hiding in Argentina? The one who murdered his wife, fled the country so he can't be extradited back, and NOW claims to have "damaging" photographs of Ground Zero??? Hardly what I'd call a reliable source, at the moment....)

The bits that I snipped and posted seem to indicate that what was found, as reported, were body parts and items from mostly the FRONT of one airpalne (this case, it seems, AAL 11). Could very well be possible that these things exited the building, along with other debris, as part of the initial crash and impact sequence. Don't know, but seems most liekly explanation.

Recorders are installed AFT of the cabin, behind the aft pressure bulkhead.

So, they most likely would have come to rest somewhere inside the carnage. THEN, of course....the buildings collapsed. Little wonder they weren't found in all that mess.

The NTSB's comment is, therefore, not applicable....it is true that in MOST cases they are recovered, but 9/11 was nothing like anything else ever experienced.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Recorders are installed AFT of the cabin, behind the aft pressure bulkhead.

So, they most likely would have come to rest somewhere inside the carnage. THEN, of course....the buildings collapsed. Little wonder they weren't found in all that mess.

The NTSB's comment is, therefore, not applicable....it is true that in MOST cases they are recovered, but 9/11 was nothing like anything else ever experienced.

Oh I see, 9/11 was so unique that everything from bone fragments to a "hijacker's" passport was recovered from Ground Zero, but ALL FOUR black boxes that can withstand 3,400 Gs and 2,000 degree F temperatures for an hour somehow weren't, which according to the NTSB, was another historical first.

Weed, is there anything about the official story that doesn't sound credible? Is there anything that you can't find a way to justify? Is it possible that anyone could be so gullible? (or worse?)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
im not an air craft engineer and will be recalling a theory i heard without understanding most of it

here goes
part of the transponder equipment is a secondary transponder assignment a secondary in case of conflict of transponder asignments these can be switched from one to another by the pilot or at the request of air traffic control
upon changing from one frequency to another there is a temporary amount of time that neither transponder frequency is braud casting
some eperb ELTs will se this lack of transmittion as a condition to start transmitting
most large passenger airliners were fitted with an anti hijack remote control system using the transponder frequency to send and receive singnals
these remote control locks out the pilot from controlling the craft
there were some anomolies to do with transponders prior to the hijack sequence
remember that a pilot cannot turn off only switch from one freq to another
if two planes were flown with similar heights speeds direction ect then there corosponding frequencies were swopped between planes then the imposter plane continues on in the place of the original

now when using lazer tracking beam riding guided target aqusition systems the payload requires a switch over from remote computer/human control to a homing box or lazer target aqusition system

this change over would only be possable in an acurate manner within a short range of the target
say 1 to 2 minutes out from target
the control computer for the hydrolic system that handles flaps rudder ect has pre programed limits so as to not stress the air frame flaps ect

when in anti hyjack mode these limits are not in effect
ie very sharp very precise course corrections are capable like the ones required by a guided missle
many hundres of output changes per second

the only traces of this system would be radar tracking (unusual movement tracks)
the elb screach on change over of frquencies
the black box recorded all the proof required

some of the movements of the second plane are not within limits for the micro processor just before impact

this is a THEORY i heard of i dont know what caused this but it makes more sence that box cutter weilding pilot school drop outs exceeding luck and airframe limits

xploder



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


A "theory" you heard? Less of a theory, more of complete imagination and misinformation:


part of the transponder equipment is a secondary transponder assignment a secondary in case of conflict of transponder asignments these can be switched from one to another by the pilot or at the request of air traffic control


What you are describing is simple: When we receive the IFR clearance, a four-digit transponder code is assigned. There are ONLY 4,096 available. This is due to the design (still in use, even after all the decades since it was invented). The digits are numbered from 0 to 7 only. No 8, no 9.

Certain combinations are not used by civilian aviation. Three (7500, 7600 and 7700) are assigned as specific 'distress' codes. 1200 is for VFR flights only. Used to be, 1400 for "Special VFR", but I think that has been dropped....now, it's used in Canada, for VFR above 12,500 feet. Other specific codes are specialized for various countries, as well.

Anyway, the 4,096 permutations limit means that, occasionally, TWO flights might have the same code assigned, and the same time. This only becomes an issue when they are going to come close enough to be controlled by the same ATC facility. THEN, one will be given a new squawk.



...upon changing from one frequency to another there is a temporary amount of time that neither transponder frequency is braud casting ...


Well, depends. Sometimes, a good technique to use is to selct "STBY" (standby) to "turn off" the transponder while changing the code. Because, if inadvertantly cycling through any combination of first two numbers as "75", "76" or "77" will trigger alerts on the ATC radar screens. Same as the codes 7500, 7600 and 7700 mentioned above will trigger.



....some eperb ELTs will se this lack of transmittion as a condition to start transmitting...


?? Not that I've ever heard! ELTs are mostly designed to activate when sensing an impact g-force. (They also have a physical ON switch, if accessible). Remember, transponders should ALWAYS be selected to "STBY" when on the ground, unless requested by ATC (for low-vis taxi operations, at some airports). They are on the "Before Take-Off" and "After Landing" checklists, and crewmember action flow procedures.


....most large passenger airliners were fitted with an anti hijack remote control system using the transponder frequency to send and receive singnals...


FALSE!!


...these remote control locks out the pilot from controlling the craft ...


Also FALSE! This is why I doubt the source of these "theories"....


...there were some anomolies to do with transponders prior to the hijack sequence.


On 9/11??? Never heard of any.


...remember that a pilot cannot turn off only switch from one freq to another
if two planes were flown with similar heights speeds direction ect then there corosponding frequencies were swopped between planes then the imposter plane continues on in the place of the original ...


Oh, more of the "swap" theory, huh?

Great for the next Bruce Willis thriller maybe, and a possible screenwriter's trick, but real world??


Besides, the 9/11 hijacked airplanes had the transponders "off" for the most part, shortly after the take-overs. Exception was UAL 175....hijacker just changed the code. Couple of times.


...now when using lazer tracking beam riding guided target aqusition systems the payload requires a switch over from remote computer/human control to a homing box or lazer target aqusition system ...


I won't even try to hazard a guess as to what that means....



...the control computer for the hydrolic system that handles flaps rudder ect has pre programed limits so as to not stress the air frame flaps ect...


True, on some airplanes (not all) and for some trailing-edge flap settings (but not all). It's called "Flap Limit Load Relief". It's controlled by the Air Data Computer (ADC), and integrated into the FMC as well, usually.

"Rudder Load Limiter" functions are for different reason. But, all in all, to prevent over-stress and damage, that's correct. However, the hijackers never activated, nor intended to activate, the flaps.


...when in anti hyjack mode these limits are not in effect...


???? What's an "anti hyjack mode"?? Oh, the made-up claim from above? Nope, no such animal.



...ie very sharp very precise course corrections are capable like the ones required by a guided missle
many hundres of output changes per second...


You mean using the auto pilot??? Nope. Not even close.



...the black box recorded all the proof required ...


Odd claim. But yes, the "black boxes" (the two that were recovered) DID record all the proof required. Except, NONE of the claims as you wrote them.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join