"New autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible"

[ribonucleic]

Or insured the first one. 

---------------------------

The mechanism is designed to... enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground...

It will be activated by... pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck.

Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system.

The latest move to combat airline terrorists follows The Mail on Sunday's disclosure three weeks ago that scientists in Britain and Germany are developing a passenger-monitoring device.

This will use tiny cameras linked to specialist computers to record every twitch, blink, facial expression or suspicious movement made on board flights in order to identify potential terrorists.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387585-details/New%20autopilot%20will%20make%20another%20911%20impossible/article.do

[24KT]

Or insured the first one. 

---------------------------

The mechanism is designed to... enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground...

It will be activated by... pressure sensors fitted to the cockpit door that will respond to any excessive force as terrorists try to break into the flight deck.

Once triggered, no one on board will be able to deactivate the system.

The latest move to combat airline terrorists follows The Mail on Sunday's disclosure three weeks ago that scientists in Britain and Germany are developing a passenger-monitoring device.

This will use tiny cameras linked to specialist computers to record every twitch, blink, facial expression or suspicious movement made on board flights in order to identify potential terrorists.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387585-details/New%20autopilot%20will%20make%20another%20911%20impossible/article.do

There goes any opportunity for discreet surreptious nookie under the blanket. 

[ribonucleic]

Why am I not surprised that it's British scientists who decided that the best way they could serve humanity was to develop a system for recording every facial twitch of a confined group of people?

"He sat as still as he could on the narrow bench, with his hands crossed on his knee. He had already learned to sit still. If you made unexpected movements they yelled at you from the telescreen..."

[24KT]

Why am I not surprised that it's British scientists who decided that the best way they could serve humanity was to develop a system for recording every facial twitch of a confined group of people?

"He sat as still as he could on the narrow bench, with his hands crossed on his knee. He had already learned to sit still. If you made unexpected movements they yelled at you from the telescreen..."

Don't be so hard on the Brits. With their stiff upper lips n' all... they're not used to facial expressions. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

So if I read this correctly the plane will be able to be flown from the ground once the system is enabled and no one in the plane can disable it. So terrorists won't actually have to hijack the plane in order to fly it where they want. They hijack the control booth that houses the remote control device.

[240 is Back]

So if I read this correctly the plane will be able to be flown from the ground once the system is enabled and no one in the plane can disable it. So terrorists won't actually have to hijack the plane in order to fly it where they want. They hijack the control booth that houses the remote control device.

a month before 9/11, a german newspaper reported boeing had repeatedly tested remote control landing of airliners.  globalhawk remote contol systems were working well in april 2001.


those useful idiot arabs didn't fly those planes.  HTH.

[ieffinhatecardio]

a month before 9/11, a german newspaper reported boeing had repeatedly tested remote control landing of airliners.  globalhawk remote contol systems were working well in april 2001.


those useful idiot arabs didn't fly those planes.  HTH.

So you're implying that the airplanes were remotely flown into the twin towers and the Pentagon?

If that's the case why did that one flight crash before hitting it's target?

[ribonucleic]

So if I read this correctly the plane will be able to be flown from the ground once the system is enabled and no one in the plane can disable it. So terrorists won't actually have to hijack the plane in order to fly it where they want. They hijack the control booth that houses the remote control device.

As I recall, the article said the system could be triggered by either: 1) the pilot, or 2) pressure switches on the door if it was forced open.

Remote triggering was neither acknowledged or ruled out - but the technical issues seem trivial enough.

[ieffinhatecardio]

As I recall, the article said the system could be triggered by either: 1) the pilot, or 2) pressure switches on the door if it was forced open.

Remote triggering was neither acknowledged or ruled out - but the technical issues seem trivial enough.

Activation via remote control seems the next logical step. I'm certainly no expert on terrorism but this idea seems to be ripe with the potential for abuse.

[ribonucleic]

So you're implying that the airplanes were remotely flown into the twin towers and the Pentagon?

This story has made that scenario more plausible for me... but it's still not my preferred theory.

Iraq gives us daily proof that there are a lot of seriously pissed-off Arabs willing to blow themselves up for a cause. And the repeatedly-demonstrated ineffectiveness of our airport security means that they wouldn't have had any serious trouble hijacking the planes.

Of course, there's much in the pattern of the government's actions after the planes were declared rogue to suggest that they were being helped along after that point.

[240 is Back]

The hijackers were doing their job - slash their way to the cockpit and guard it while it was taken over.  They were then flown somewhere else remotely.  FLight 93 landed in an evacuated cleve hopkins airport and was reported by akron beacn journal and local media, before being scrubbed from record.

We have video clips showing high speed projectiles from the sky hitting WTC6 - no one here will discuss it because it is what it is, a missile.  We look at the pentagon - the lack of debris or video, and the perfectly round hole thru 3 buildings - that is a dressed up missile with a flyover craft for radar and witness purposes.   And helicopter overhead video from 10 minutes after shanksville event (before govt arrived) showed an empty hole. 

The towers weren't hit by planes.  Some of the hijackers are alive and well in Europe.  No plane has ever hit a building and sustained zero damage, never pierced right thru, hell, I could go on, but I gain nothing from convincing small minded people.  So you guys just wait around and let history explain it to you.  There are so many holes in the official story that it's unbelievable that people still believe it.  But hell, if you're insecure enough to need a daddy to make you feel safe...

[ieffinhatecardio]

The hijackers were doing their job - slash their way to the cockpit and guard it while it was taken over.  They were then flown somewhere else remotely.  FLight 93 landed in an evacuated cleve hopkins airport and was reported by akron beacn journal and local media, before being scrubbed from record.

We have video clips showing high speed projectiles from the sky hitting WTC6 - no one here will discuss it because it is what it is, a missile.  We look at the pentagon - the lack of debris or video, and the perfectly round hole thru 3 buildings - that is a dressed up missile with a flyover craft for radar and witness purposes.   And helicopter overhead video from 10 minutes after shanksville event (before govt arrived) showed an empty hole. 

The towers weren't hit by planes. Some of the hijackers are alive and well in Europe.  No plane has ever hit a building and sustained zero damage, never pierced right thru, hell, I could go on, but I gain nothing from convincing small minded people.  So you guys just wait around and let history explain it to you.  There are so many holes in the official story that it's unbelievable that people still believe it.  But hell, if you're insecure enough to need a daddy to make you feel safe...

I can't believe I'm asking this but what about the video we all saw of the plane directly hitting the towers? One video was even from below and was clear as day.

[OzmO]

I can't believe I'm asking this but what about the video we all saw of the plane directly hitting the towers? One video was even from below and was clear as day.

he thinks it's a hologram from one of the choppers

[Dos Equis]

he thinks it's a hologram from one of the choppers

I was going to say it.  You beat me to it. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

he thinks it's a hologram from one of the choppers

Yep, I'm sorry I asked. Thanks for the verifying that for me. 

[240 is Back]

I can't believe I'm asking this but what about the video we all saw of the plane directly hitting the towers? One video was even from below and was clear as day.

Since you asked, I'll assume you're curious and not mocking like others obviously are.

From afar, the plane do not fade into view.  They go from not being there, to being there and fairly large.  They just appear, they do not fade in from very small to very large pixels.  They are just there.

Planes do not penetrate buildings in that manner - they never have, before or after.

The object penetrated completely, then a round dark nosecone penetrated the other side before any explosion started.  Carbon nosecones don't penetrate two walls and still retain shape, changing colors in the process.

Witnesses saw missiles, fox and drudge even reported missiles that day.

I do not claim to know what technology was used to deliver a highly explosive payload in a penetrator format, thru a building, before detonation.  None of us can know the level of weapontry in use.  I think we CAN, however, agree that IF the govt wanted a weapon to look like a plane and inflict missile damage, it easily has the capability to do this.  Toss in the pentagon moneyman (2.3 trillion gone) happened to own a defense contracting firm which made remote control planes, and that plane #1 hit an office owned by paul bremer's private firm.

I don't know what happened that day, and neither do any of us.  My belief, from studying the evidence, is that 2 planes didn't cause all that damage.  My motivation to say this?  None.  I get mocked for it.  The govt's motivation for saying it was all 2 planes?  Well, blank check for wars, civil rights controls, and 2.3 trillion bucks. 

I don't want anyone to believe me, I could care less. Ya asked and I shared.  Resaerch it (wtc6 missile is a good start), but you're gonna believe what you wanna believe.

[OzmO]

Since you asked, I'll assume you're curious and not mocking like others obviously are.

From afar, the plane do not fade into view.  They go from not being there, to being there and fairly large.  They just appear, they do not fade in from very small to very large pixels.  They are just there.

Planes do not penetrate buildings in that manner - they never have, before or after.

The object penetrated completely, then a round dark nosecone penetrated the other side before any explosion started.  Carbon nosecones don't penetrate two walls and still retain shape, changing colors in the process.

Witnesses saw missiles, fox and drudge even reported missiles that day.

I do not claim to know what technology was used to deliver a highly explosive payload in a penetrator format, thru a building, before detonation.  None of us can know the level of weapontry in use.  I think we CAN, however, agree that IF the govt wanted a weapon to look like a plane and inflict missile damage, it easily has the capability to do this.  Toss in the pentagon moneyman (2.3 trillion gone) happened to own a defense contracting firm which made remote control planes, and that plane #1 hit an office owned by paul bremer's private firm.

I don't know what happened that day, and neither do any of us.  My belief, from studying the evidence, is that 2 planes didn't cause all that damage.  My motivation to say this?  None.  I get mocked for it.  The govt's motivation for saying it was all 2 planes?  Well, blank check for wars, civil rights controls, and 2.3 trillion bucks. 

I don't want anyone to believe me, I could care less. Ya asked and I shared.  Resaerch it (wtc6 missile is a good start), but you're gonna believe what you wanna believe.

I don;t if you were talking about me, but i wasn't trying to mock.  ( if i  was i'd have thrown in some smart ass lug) I was simply  stating what i believe you believe.  Although i disagree with 95% of most of your assertions on this matter i do respect your passion regarding this even though we have hurled insults at each other in the past in the heat of a debate.

Also i am starting to think one of 2 things might have happened with WTC7, either they knew it was coming down because they were able to see damage we couldn't see, or they demolished it.

that might of explain some of the false reporting prior to coming down.

[240 is Back]

Even with internal damage to WTC7, the outer core - supporting the building was intact, as it was still standing.   At the absolute least, the brick, concrete, steel of those areas should have remained on top of the pile, even if hell itself was going on inside.

Instead, 500 feet of material because 20 feet high.  Every ounce of concrete in that building was powderized.  this shouldn't have happened.  Couple that with the fact one secret srvc agent died in the building, the 911 commission wouldn't touch it, NIST keeps changing positions and won't put out a report almost 6 years afterwards, and that silverstein designated (NO CONTROLLED DEMO) in his fire insurance claim for 480 million - - -

so, at the very least, he admitted 'pulling it', a man died there, and he collected the money wrongly (if it was a demo).  so you have manslaughter and fraud at the least.

[OzmO]

Even with internal damage to WTC7, the outer core - supporting the building was intact, as it was still standing.   At the absolute least, the brick, concrete, steel of those areas should have remained on top of the pile, even if hell itself was going on inside.

Instead, 500 feet of material because 20 feet high.  Every ounce of concrete in that building was powderized.  this shouldn't have happened.  Couple that with the fact one secret srvc agent died in the building, the 911 commission wouldn't touch it, NIST keeps changing positions and won't put out a report almost 6 years afterwards, and that silverstein designated (NO CONTROLLED DEMO) in his fire insurance claim for 480 million - - -

so, at the very least, he admitted 'pulling it', a man died there, and he collected the money wrongly (if it was a demo).  so you have manslaughter and fraud at the least.

We don;t know that.  We don't because we are not privy to the same info.  It's as if we are looking at it from afar.  We don;t what was going on in the building. 

We are assuming, based on incomplete information, that it must have been "this".  That's speculation.  I would sign what ever petition and support what ever legal action that needs to be taken to re-investigate it, but i will not make assumptions based on incomplete facts.

[240 is Back]

We don;t know that.  We don't because we are not privy to the same info.  It's as if we are looking at it from afar.  We don;t what was going on in the building. 

We are assuming, based on incomplete information, that it must have been "this".  That's speculation.  I would sign what ever petition and support what ever legal action that needs to be taken to re-investigate it, but i will not make assumptions based on incomplete facts.

My assumption is, that the parts of the building which were intact when a collapse started, would not be completely powderized from the collapse.

When you look at this building, it is probably reasonable to assume that in order to be even standing, a decent % of it must still be standing.  We can see the outer walls.  We know they are intact.    So at the very least, even if the fires of hell on the inside has reduced everything to powder (scientifically impossible with the temperature, but we'll pretend) EVEN IF, well, those outer walls should have collapsed - falled down - but not been powderized.



There is only one instance where buildings go from solid to powder instantly - when they are exploded.  Gravity alone cannot powderize a building.  You can lift a 47-story building, 500 feet off the ground, and drop it - and it will make a monster mess - but it surely will not turn into 20 feet of metal and giant clouds of powder.

Only explosives have the energy required to powderize every ounce of concrete in that building into powder, and to do it in under 7 seconds.  I'm not assuming that.  It is a fact.  The mass of a building times gravity cannot powderize a building. 

Oz, do you disagree with this?
The mass of a building times gravity cannot powderize a building. 

[ribonucleic]

even if the fires of hell on the inside has reduced everything to powder....

Fires of hell, eh?

What was Satan doing on 9/11 anyway? 

[Dos Equis]

Fires of hell, eh?

What was Satan doing on 9/11 anyway? 

[Hand raising] Oh I know the answer to this one!  He was telling the terrorists who carried out 911 to carry out their twisted plot.  Unfortunately, they listened.   

[Cavalier22]

the planes didnt really hit the towers!

hhahhahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



240, seroiusly man.  Take a day away from the computer screen, go out in teh real world, clear your head, avoid these half baked websites and youtube clips.   Its getting ridicuolous now.  I have heard so many different theories about so many different things on 9/11, all from you.  When you have finally pinned down what happened, let me know so no one will waste their time watching some fuzzy youtbe "proof' of htis or that.

[240 is Back]

cav, those planes hit the two towers and slipped right in.  wings, engines, everything - at a diagonal angle - and despite the steel supports, the wings kept their form and sliced thru them cleanly.

This doesn't happen, and history will show it.  It is very hard to believe, and you will not, until you do 3 things:

1) Accept that govts sacrifice innocents for the greater good - even ours.
2) Look at the evidence with an open mind
3) Spend some time researching it.

I don't care about converting you, i don't care what you believe.  Interesting, you're laughing (very hard) about the possibility something besides planes hit the towers - and you have not researched it.  Kind of ignorant to mock something you have not researched.  but hey, ignorance is bliss, and you seem happy enough, so enjoy it.  Let those with an open mind look at these things.  You keep giggling about things you haven't researched.

[OzmO]

cav, those planes hit the two towers and slipped right in.  wings, engines, everything - at a diagonal angle - and despite the steel supports, the wings kept their form and sliced thru them cleanly.

This doesn't happen, and history will show it.  It is very hard to believe, and you will not, until you do 3 things:

1) Accept that govts sacrifice innocents for the greater good - even ours.
2) Look at the evidence with an open mind
3) Spend some time researching it.

I don't care about converting you, i don't care what you believe.  Interesting, you're laughing (very hard) about the possibility something besides planes hit the towers - and you have not researched it.  Kind of ignorant to mock something you have not researched.  but hey, ignorance is bliss, and you seem happy enough, so enjoy it.  Let those with an open mind look at these things.  You keep giggling about things you haven't researched.

so are you officially saying, for the record, planes did not hit the towers?