Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by joecool85, May 28, 2006.
I think that's evidence of senility and not a government cover up.
When was the video shot? That seems key to me. It wasn't shot recently. Rummy looks different.
Before the tapes and information came out and research was finished, I think it would have been reasonable to presume that the plane was shot down. How many people thought it went down as it did as the events unfolded.
Why are people so concerned about this as a coverup? As terrible as the whole thing was, clearly the plane was going down and everyone aboard was going to be killed. If such a flight comes into London airspace, fighters are ordered to shoot it down. Terrible, I know, but if the plane is going to be crashed anyway, better to take it down before it finds its way to a highly populated target. What would be the point in allowing the plane to fly into DC?
I dont see anyone else reporting this.
Lets say what's rumored to have happened is true...the people on the flight managed to overtake the terrorists and possibly injure them to the point where they weren't capable of flying a plane. No one on the plane knew how to fly, thus, they decided to crash it as not to kill anyone on the ground. In the process of bringing it down, the plane was shot down. Now, I'm no aviation expert, but why couldn't air traffic control do something like turn autopilot on to land the plane somewhere safely? Or instruct someone how to turn it on? Granted, no passengers knew how to fly, but surely, one could operate a radio and follow directions.
What if the plane crashed in the midst of a struggle in the cockpit for control of aircraft?
First, autopilot cannot land a plane, only a person can.
Also, I thought that it crashed while they were fighting with the terrorists, and that the passengers ever had complete control of the plane. If you attack a pilot and in the struggle kick the yolk it wouldn't be that hard to send the plane into a dive/spin that would a) be very difficult to get out of without ripping the plane apart, b) knock everyone off of there feet and keep knocking them around so that they are unable to get to the controls.
Third thing, the terrorists could have had the plane set up to make communications difficult, such as turning off the radio. Someone who doesn't know how to fly wouldn't necessarily be able to figure out how to turn it on and talk. There is no radio on button.
Keeping a plane in the air isn't very difficult. Landing it is a whole different ball game. Although a lot of planes these days CAN land themselves, I'm not sure that was possible with this particular plane.
I'm not certain what happened, we'll probably never find out, but it wouldn't surprise me, given all that had already happened at that point, that they decided to shoot it down.
Not true in the case of many later model jets from Airbus and Boeing, especially at ILS euipped airports.
Anyway, not, the fracking US Governemnt did not go shooting down planes.
The link was posted on someone's away message and I thought it was interesting. I'm not much for government conspiracies, but this caught my attention regardless.
The recently released information strongly suggests that the passengers were attempting to enter the cockpit when the terrorists decided to plow the airplane into the ground. As for flying the airplane, engaging the autopilot, which I think a reasonably clever person could figure out how to do, would hold altitude and airspeed and keep the wings level, creating some breathing room to figure out other things, such as operating the radio. It's not out of the realm of the possible that an untrained person could be talked down, though I wouldn't count on using the airplane again.
One of the passengers was a qualified pilot and could have regained control.
It will probably never be totally clear, but the fact that debris was found
over an 8 square mile area, indicates that either the plane began to break
up before it hit the ground or it was shot down.
AFAIK there is no way for control of an aircraft to be taken remotely.
how about U-control
I hadn't heard that, but as a qualified (private) pilot myself, I'm aware of the fact that if faced with the daunting prospect of flying an airliner, that I'd be in way over my head. Still, I presume most pilots would know that their first task would be engaging the autopilot, then squawking the hijack code on the transponder, then setting the radio frequency to 121.5 and calling a mayday. After that, it's up to the good people on the ground to explain the airplane's vital systems well enough to get the airplane on the ground.
If you could control an airplane remotely then hijacking wouldn't be a problem.....
Anyway, the discussion over the ability for the passengers to land the aircraft safely I think is moot as I doubt they ever had full control over the cockpit before it was to late (either the plane breaking up or hitting the ground).
It's done every day...
Quite right, there isn't. Since 9/11, I've heard some discussion about introducing such a system, but the technical problems are fairly immense, and of course, pilots would resist it.
On unmanned yes, but not on airplanes with a cockpit. That ability is not a function of any piloted aircraft that I know of.
If you watch that video a couple times you will see Rumsfield referring to the terrorist bombing things and shooting the plane down NOT the USA shooting it down.
But I have to agree..It's just a senile Rummy babbling..
Well, listening to the blackbox recording (and reading the translations) you can clearly hear that the passengers had wounded one of the hijackers, and the orders came from the leader to push the plane down when the passengers were trying to get into the cockpit.
It's also believed that one of the pilots of the plane had his throat slit, and possibly managed to sabotage the autopilot system (when you can hear the hijackers tell him to sit repeatedly.) They couldn't figure out the system, so rather than being beat down like a bunch of little bitches they were, they decide to crash it.
Since the first airliner hijackings early in the 70's Boeing and Airbus had both been working on a remote hijack recovery system.
It is already known that 777's and some Airbus planes do now have this capability as their control systems are fully digital.
The 757 and 767's were partially digital, but to what degree I do not know.
One of the theories on the Pentagon crash was that the pilot was far too poorly skilled to manage those extreme manuveres, therefore hinting that
" someone " may have been controlling the aircraft remotely.
AFAIK one of the related FOIA requests is asking for details regarding this capabilty in particular.
In other words, do engineering or maintenance records of flight 77 show that this remote anti-hijack capability was installed in flight 77?
If so, when was it last tested?
This would reveal hardware and software used as well as up-link information showing exactly who had this kind of control.
It boggles the mind to imagine the possibilties IF we were to find out
that the planes used on 9/11 could have been controlled from the ground.
IN FACT, I would love to work with a screenwriter and film maker on my personal theory.
An airplane having digital (aka, "glass") instruments in the cockpit does not mean or even imply that the airplane can be readily controlled from the ground.
Actually there is evidence to the contrary.
Naturally this capability was suppressed on grounds of National Security
In fact there is a great deal of internal controversy between manufacturers
airlines and pilots about this very matter.
The argument is not about whether it can be done or not at all.
It is already established that it has been done.
The issues they are arguing over has to do with what happens when the
controls overide the pilot's capabilties in emergency situations to avoid