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.
Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by jfj123
So you are saying that it would have been very easy for the planes to have been remote controlled into the building. I see, that makes sense. Since it would have been practically impossible to hire goons to hijack the plane and fly them into buildings they just used remote.....
Originally posted by OrionStars
Whatever people do after "mastering" computer progammed video arcade simulated flight games, do not take the computer out and try to "masterfully" crash it at high speed in to tall buildings. The building will be fine. But the computers and simulator programs can take a real bite out of personal finances trying to replace them.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Why? I do not recall any C-17s mentioned in the "official" reports? Anyone else recall it?
Why don't you just throw in the Titantic for good measure? it would be just as off-topic.
Originally posted by shug7272
reply to [If highjacking a plane with little to no piloting experience and flying it into a target were so easy, why has it not been done (save 911) in the century or so of manned flight?
And if your gonna tell me "well it wasnt easy"... they sure made it look easy.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
The idea of remote control comes up every so often but the duplex telemetry rate required for accuracy at those speeds possibly doesn't exist. It would need line of sight microwave comms at the very least and I didn't notice any dishes on the planes.
So it still looks the people alleged to have done it actually did do it
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Wing-nut
That's it in a nutshell alright
However you left out the vacuum lift generating device (j/k)
Take-offs are optional but all landings remain mandatory as they say.
Would an autopilot be capable of making the observed maneuvers with the precision required?
As far as I know, they're limited to very conservative changes and maintaining altitude, speed and bearing. The idea of remote control comes up every so often but the duplex telemetry rate required for accuracy at those speeds possibly doesn't exist. It would need line of sight microwave comms at the very least and I didn't notice any dishes on the planes.
So it still looks the people alleged to have done it actually did do it
75% is pretty damn successful. Hell we have a lower success rate than that regarding simple medical procedures. They were 75% successful because the passengers forced them to ground the plane.. right? So that really doesnt play into it at all. If it were up to our Gov it would appear it would have been 100% success judging on how they handled they others.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by shug7272
reply to [If highjacking a plane with little to no piloting experience and flying it into a target were so easy, why has it not been done (save 911) in the century or so of manned flight?
And if your gonna tell me "well it wasnt easy"... they sure made it look easy.
Same reason we didn't see 100s of suicide bombers in the past. Most did not do these kinds of things with the intent to commit suicide. Also they were 75% successful so not so easy...
We can also say the same thing about IEDs for they are another intelligent invention of a totally different direction than what we have seen in the past.
Originally posted by shug7272
So please give me a link to your info showing in what time period terrorists decided that not dying along with the victims was no longer a good idea. Otherwise your point is moot.
Originally posted by Wing-nut
reply to post by weedwhacker
By jove I do believe that you got it.
Yes it really is that simple!