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.

 

Level D Simulator Data Production - *snip*

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
If it's not obvious enough from my recorded phone call with a flight sim. company, and the many avionics
web sites easily found on the web, here is yet more proof that a level D simulator can produce flight data
like it's real world counterpart.



Source:

www.ihst.org...

Additional Proof:



Weed is still confused about the technology and is also confusing my theory about how the data was manipulated.

The Flight Data from the level D flight sim. can be recorded to a computer, and / or a flight data recorder if
necessary.

It doesn't matter which one; a flight data recorder is nothing more than a fancy, expensive MP3 player, or
iPod if you will. The flight data recorder contains an EEPROM memory module just like an MP3 player, or
USB stick.

You can therefore upload, or record data from the flight simulator to a laptop, or directly to the simulator's
system computer.

Just as you would open a file in your word processor, you would open the simulator flight data file in the
appropriate flight software (such as shown above).

You can easily merge files by copying and pasting data...just like you would add a paragraph to your
text document and save it.

There you go. No FDR needed. You can burn this file to a CD and issue it via FOIA request.

That is one possible scenario.

*snip*

I have never been more right, and Weed has never been more wrong.

Even if you believe the official story, or if you believe "AA77" hit the Pentagon, you cannot deny the proof
that flight sims produce flight data, and that you can merge different flight recordings to one file.



edit on 21-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)





Mod Edit: References to a fellow ATS member have been removed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated in any shape or form.
edit on 1/22/2011 by maria_stardust because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
They have Debate Forums for this stuff....you should look into it.

2nd



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Great Tino... Now all you have to do is PROVE that it was faked.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


One issue is, Weedwhacker says he was a commercial pilot..
Though I personally have seen NO proof of that..

Still, the fact that you're a pilot does not mean you understand everything relating to a plane..
That's like saying everyone who drives a car knows EXACTLY how a car works..

Yes, commercial pilots must learn the basics in Engines and Systems, Instruments, Navigation, Aerodynamics and Meteorology..
I know because I have passes in all of them, but that doesn't mean I have enough knowledge to challenge an expert in a particular field...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I believe and have indirect proof that "WeedWacker" is/was a pilot. No dispute there.

He does however have a problem understanding avioncs systems and technology which I have proven,
and will prove again with this thread.
edit on 21-1-2011 by turbofan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Before the festivities begin I just wanted to question the title of the thread.

Surely the OP means the rotating committee that is WeedWhacker?

Weedy himself has probably been sent out for coffee and doughnuts as the committee prepares for the assault.
edit on 21-1-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
interesting post OP!
I look foward to weedwhackers reponse.

Its to bad we dont have those blackboxes which could prove this!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I believe John Lear is/was a pilot.

As for weedwhacker, the only evidence I have is hearsay from Springer, who claims to have see the evidence.

Has anyone else other than Springer seen proof that weedwhacker is a pilot?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I wouldn't waste too much time proving the pilot angle. That information doesn't affect what I'm trying to prove
(again) to WeedWhacker.

The first step is to prove a method is possible. Once he, and others learn that a technology exists and how
it may be used to deceive, they might just open up...naaa, they wont...but at least this issue will be put to
rest.

Adding a flight to an existing data file is nothing short of copying an extra chapter of a story in your word processor and saving the file.

All you need is the proper flight investigation software and a level D sim. Both of which were accessible to
the "insiders".



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by turbofan
 


Great Tino... Now all you have to do is PROVE that it was faked.


Surely proof of concept is all that's required at this time.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
So, we are adding yet another layer to the conspiracy? The technicians required to program the simulator and record the data onto the individual flight data recorders that were recovered? How many layers of personnel is that now anyway?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
So, we are adding yet another layer to the conspiracy? The technicians required to program the simulator and record the data onto the individual flight data recorders that were recovered? How many layers of personnel is that now anyway?


It's not about *who* may have had access to accomplish the deceit, but rather that it is indeed possible to actually do it. And actually accomplish it quite simply too!

Cheers OP, your approach to this subject is the way to go.

We can be here for another decade or more saying 'yes it can, no it can't' etc. but with hard facts like you present here, al least eliminates the 'no it can't' arguments from those who would seek to pull the wool over the eyes of the less knowledgeable.

Nice one mate.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 



You are kidding right? Hey, you know its actually possible to do this......THEREFORE, they MUST have done it on 9/11.....

Good grief.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Hey Charlie Brown,

Are you assuming that the data was manipulated in the US? There are other countries that have these capabilities other than the US. For example Israel. Do you think Israel would be running to tell anyone in the US of their involvement in 9/11? Unless of course they wanted to be wiped off the map.

I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone of the Manhattan Project. Secrets of this nature can and have been kept before, why do people have a problem seeing the possibility of this now? Who would want to come forward with knowledge of the Official 9/11 story being a lie? They would automatically would become a suspect and chastised for not coming out sooner.
edit on 22-1-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



Just as you would open a file in your word processor, you would open the simulator flight data file in the
appropriate flight software (such as shown above).

You can easily merge files by copying and pasting data...just like you would add a paragraph to your
text document and save it.

There you go. No FDR needed. You can burn this file to a CD and issue it via FOIA request.


One person to merge and save the file, and send it out on CD.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Hey Charlie Brown,

Are you assuming that the data was manipulated in the US? There are other countries that have these capabilities other than the US. For example Israel. Do you think Israel would be running to tell anyone in the US of their involvement in 9/11? Unless of course they wanted to be wiped off the map.

I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone of the Manhattan Project. Secrets of this nature can and have been kept before, why do people have a problem seeing the possibility of this now? Who would want to come forward with knowledge of the Official 9/11story being a lie? They would automatically would become a suspect and chastised for not coming out sooner.
edit on 22-1-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


You mean the same Manhattan Project that Stalin already knew about when Roosevelt said they were working on a device of largescale destuction? The same Manhattan Project that allowed Russia to have a bomb specs were IDENTICAL to the Trinity Bomb less than 3 years after the test?
edit on 1/22/2011 by GenRadek because: clearing up



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by spikey
 



You are kidding right? Hey, you know its actually possible to do this......THEREFORE, they MUST have done it on 9/11.....

Good grief.


Don't act like an idiot mate.

That is nothing like what i said, and if you care to actually *read* what i wrote, anyone with half an ounce of common sense would know it too!


Here, i'll patronise you a bit it helps you to comprehend simple language;

The first step in investigation is to investigate if an action or something else that is being *hypothesised* as a possible step in perpetrating a crime of the magnitude of 9/11, is *actually feasible* in the first instance.

If after investigating the *hypothesised* method mentioned in this thread, it is found that this is virtually impossible to achieve, then that avenue of research could justifiably be dropped.

On the other hand, if the investigation reveals that the action is not only entirely possible, but also extremely simple to accomplish, then that avenue is given a green light for further research, although the questions pertaining to 'who' may have had the means and motivation to do it is also hypothetical at this point, and would be looked at only *after* it was found to be possible to do as is being hypothesised in the first place!

Again, this is an important and *logical* approach to investigating anything, not just 9/11.

I seriously cannot understand how you cannot accept this premiss as a logical step in investigation.

*On no occasion have i said that simply because 'something' is possible, that the 'something' must have occurred in the way being hypothesised*...you managed to cock that up all on your own.



Do you understand that? Or do you need to be spoon fed some more?




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join