Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air..

On Sep 17, 9:51 pm, "aemeijers" <aemeij....DeleteThis@att.net> wrote:
> <trad....DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1190028100.331952.171090@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 8:09 pm, "aemeijers" <aemeij....DeleteThis@att.net> wrote:
> >> <trad....DeleteThis@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1189985209.884215.97130@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> (snip)
>
> >> > As far as dealing with commercial planes, if you want to spend money,
> >> > a better solution might be to require commercial jets to be
> >> > retrofitted with a system that would work as follows. The newer jets
> >> > already have the capability to land themselves at ILS equipped
> >> > airports. The autopilot could have pre-programmed landing
> >> > infomation that, when activated, would direct the plane to land at one
> >> > of a number of pre-determined sites. For say, NYC area, the site
> >> > could be McGuire Air Force Base. This system could be activated by a
> >> > signal from ATC on the ground and could not be over ridden by the
> >> > flight crew. So, when activated in the northeast, the plane would fly
> >> > itself to McGuire AFB and land. Just to be clear, the sites are pre-
> >> > loaded and in the plane's system. The ground ATC could select one of
> >> > the sites, but not direct the plane to some co-ordinates of their
> >> > choice. That prevents any unauthorized use from leading to something
> >> > bad.
>
> >> Oh, that'll go over REAL well with the pilot's union. Lotsa luck finding
> >> any
> >> drivers for airplanes where the pilot can't override the autopilot. Hell,
> >> the original Mercury astronauts basically told NASA- 'put in a control
> >> stick
> >> and a window, or we ain't going.'
>
> >> We don't have Starship Enterprise -grade computers and control systems
> >> yet.
> >> The auto-landing systems we do have are only man-rated because there is a
> >> human in the cockpit ready to take over.
>
> >> aem sends...-
>
> > This isn't science fiction. In fact, airplanes today do have the
> > capability to make a full ILS approach and landing on autopilot, with
> > no final judgement or action required by the pilot for use in bad
> > weather. Check out a CAT IIIC landing.
>
> > Now, I agree, getting pilots to accept the type of system I proposed
> > could be a challenge. However, my main point was that if you want to
> > do something to prevent planes from being flown into buildings, there
> > are more effective solutions that would cost less than having
> > thousands of air force fighter jets flying around. Adding some pre-
> > programmed landing sites onto planes already equipped for CATIIIC that
> > could then be chosen and activated from the ground wouldn't be very
> > difficult.
>
> I wasn't disputing that the systems exist, and work MOST of the time. But
> the backup for the systems is the switch that disengages them, and the Mark
> I human wetware that takes over.
>
> aem sends....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


So, let me get this straight. The 767 is making a CAT IIIc landing
approach in heavy fog. At exactly what point does the pilot decide
to take over? The whole purpose of CAT IIIc is there is no decision
height for the pilot to abort the landing becaue the visiblity is so
poor.

And if you don't think pilots or people feel comfortable with a
computer controlling the plane, what exactly do you think is already
controlling most modern commercial planes all the time? Ever hear of
fly by wire? There is already a computer between the controls the
pilot touches and the control surfaces, engines, etc, that can't be
overridden. The old wire and hydraulics mechanical linkage from the
cockpit to the control surfaces is rapidly disappearing.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

In article <nbaue3h8avdouukqg5jb6035bbp2im106l.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
Yeah Right <freewhyever.RemoveThis@freewhatever.freehowever> wrote:

> Basically because the government, if they did it, have more
> experts and have much greater control over the experts who work
> for them and can "prove" the conspiracy theorists wrong every
> time.
> It is called "outgunning" the opposition.

Basically, the lack of evidence that the conspiracy exists is the
surest evidence that the conspiracy is working.
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air.. 

trader4 RemoveThis @optonline.net wrote:
> On Sep 16, 8:09 pm, "aemeijers" <aemeij... RemoveThis @att.net> wrote:
>> <trad... RemoveThis @optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1189985209.884215.97130@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> As far as dealing with commercial planes, if you want to spend money,
>>> a better solution might be to require commercial jets to be
>>> retrofitted with a system that would work as follows. The newer jets
>>> already have the capability to land themselves at ILS equipped
>>> airports. The autopilot could have pre-programmed landing
>>> infomation that, when activated, would direct the plane to land at one
>>> of a number of pre-determined sites. For say, NYC area, the site
>>> could be McGuire Air Force Base. This system could be activated by a
>>> signal from ATC on the ground and could not be over ridden by the
>>> flight crew. So, when activated in the northeast, the plane would fly
>>> itself to McGuire AFB and land. Just to be clear, the sites are pre-
>>> loaded and in the plane's system. The ground ATC could select one of
>>> the sites, but not direct the plane to some co-ordinates of their
>>> choice. That prevents any unauthorized use from leading to something
>>> bad.
>> Oh, that'll go over REAL well with the pilot's union. Lotsa luck finding any
>> drivers for airplanes where the pilot can't override the autopilot. Hell,
>> the original Mercury astronauts basically told NASA- 'put in a control stick
>> and a window, or we ain't going.'
>>
>> We don't have Starship Enterprise -grade computers and control systems yet.
>> The auto-landing systems we do have are only man-rated because there is a
>> human in the cockpit ready to take over.
>>
>> aem sends...-
>>
>
>
> This isn't science fiction. In fact, airplanes today do have the
> capability to make a full ILS approach and landing on autopilot, with
> no final judgement or action required by the pilot for use in bad
> weather. Check out a CAT IIIC landing.
>
> Now, I agree, getting pilots to accept the type of system I proposed
> could be a challenge. However, my main point was that if you want to
> do something to prevent planes from being flown into buildings, there
> are more effective solutions that would cost less than having
> thousands of air force fighter jets flying around. Adding some pre-
> programmed landing sites onto planes already equipped for CATIIIC that
> could then be chosen and activated from the ground wouldn't be very
> difficult.
>

Great idea, for an enemy.

Just take over ground control and fly hundreds of airliner-bombs into
buildings all around the US.

Don't believe it could happen? Those who were supposed to prevent an
attack on 9/11 were too stupid and weak. Why should that change?

The most effective security to overcome is the one with the
highest confidence.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 >> Stay informed about: Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial air..