Dracula Rises from the Coffin

[pomeroo]

I keep saying, the existence of those hijacked planes is deadly to the tinfoil-hat lunacy. An article by Mark Gaffney posted on 911blogger.com attempts to resurrect the Global Hawk/remote-controlled flight myth:


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6075


Paging Apathoid!

 

[ktesibios]

Well, I'm not surprised. As anyone who has seen the fine series of educational films produced by Hammer in the '60s and '70s will know, no matter how thoroughly dusted the Count might have been last time around, there's always some damned fool who'll come along and pull out the stake in time for the next release, even if he has to come all the way from China to do it. [1]

This fellow appears to be aware of Apathoid's paper:

One anonymous critic who claims to be a Boeing maintenance technician has argued that even in the worst case a 757 or 767 pilot could simply pull the electrical breakers, shutting down the power supply to the onboard computers. This would allow him to regain control and fly the old fashioned way, that is, by the seat of his pants, though, no doubt, with considerably more difficulty. Such criticisms, I fully acknowledge, may well be correct.

But he doesn't seem to have enough of a feel for elementary mechanics to look at the Boeing diagrams that Apathoid reproduced and draw the obvious inference that while it might be possible for a rogue autopilot to fight the pilots, there's no way that it could lock them out of the flight controls.

Apparently having absorbed nothing but Apathoid's text, and that poorly, he tries to handwave it all away:

The problem is that under the circumstances it's impossible to evaluate them, without additional information. Unfortunately, short of hacking into Boeing's corporate files there is no way to determine whether the company did or did not engineer a hidden override system into its 767s and 757s.

I know a simple way to do it. If we assume that Boeing engineered a "hidden override system" into their products, there are two possibilities:

1. The operation, testing and maintenance of the system would be documented in their service manuals, in which case the people who work on the planes' control systems would know about it.

2. There would be no documentation of this system in their tech literature, in which case the people who work on the planes' control systems would be working on hardware which fails to correspond with what's shown in their service manuals. This would be noticed.

Since Apathoid's paper provides enough information to make it clear that designing a system to take control away from the pilots and turn it over to a remote system would require significant changes in the hardware of the control systems, the notion that it could be done with a secret software change is right out.

So there's your simple way to determine whether the company did or did not engineer a hidden override system into its 767s and 757s. Find someone who works on them for a living and ask them about it.

Oh wait, that's been done, hasn't it?

P.S. Since espousing the more visibly absurd Troother claims is now taken as prima facie proof that the speaker is a disinfo agent, it seems safe to pronounce the author of this article a government plant, disinfo agent and shill.

 

[apathoid]

I keep saying, the existence of those hijacked planes is deadly to the tinfoil-hat lunacy. An article by Mark Gaffney posted on 911blogger.com attempts to resurrect the Global Hawk/remote-controlled flight myth:


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6075


Paging Apathoid!

Thanks for the headaches up, Ron. I wouldn't know where to start with this wall of gibberish. Its actually pretty funny that the author seems to think a "hidden override system" would go unnoticed by technicians. I would also like to know what the override system overrides. The manual flight controls?... The autopilot?... Both? Of course the author does not go further into this because such an override system is akin to a screen door on a submarine....I'll hit a few highlights.

The goal was to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Vialls claimed the effort succeeded brilliantly in developing the means, first, to listen in on cockpit conversations in a target aircraft; and, second, to take absolute control of the plane’s computerized flight control system by means of a remote channel.

This would be a fairly useless system on 80% of the worlds commercial airline fleet including the 757/767 fleets, for the myriad of reasons outlined in my remote takeover paper.

To be “truly effective,” however, the new technology “had to be completely integrated with all onboard systems.” This could only be achieved by incorporating the system into a new aircraft design. Vialls charged this is exactly what happened. A high-level decision was made and Boeing very quietly included a “back door” into the computer designs for two new commercial planes then on the drawing boards: the 767 and 757. Both planes went into production in the early 1980s

What computer designs? There is no authoritative HAL9000-esque computer entity on these aircraft and the fight controls are mechanical...sheesh.

Crucially, on 9/11, not one of the eight commercial pilots and copilots sent the standard signal alerting FAA authorities that a hijacking was in progress.12 Sending this signal, or “squawking,” as it is called, takes only a few seconds, and is done by activating a cockpit device known as an ELT (emergency locator transmitter). A pilot simply keys-in a four-digit code and the message “I have been hijacked”

Nice research except for the fact that the ELT is for crashes; its the ATC/TCAS control panel that gets "squawked". I would also like to know how a pilot could set the transponder to 7500 unless the hijackers let him as it takes over 5 seconds(depending on what the code was set at).

According to Vialls, the footage is anomalous because it shows the plane executing a maneuver during its final approach that exceeds the normal software limitations of a 767.

More fine research. The software limits are not being exceeded because there are none. But as someone else here pointed out, it does indicate the airplane was being flown manually(not on autopilot).

One anonymous critic who claims to be a Boeing maintenance technician has argued that even in the worst case a 757 or 767 pilot could simply pull the electrical breakers, shutting down the power supply to the onboard computers. This would allow him to regain control and fly the old fashioned way, that is, by the seat of his pants, though, no doubt, with considerably more difficulty. Such criticisms, I fully acknowledge, may well be correct. The problem is that under the circumstances it’s impossible to evaluate them, without additional information.

Don't take my word for it; call a maintenace coordinator/crew training center at any airline that operates a sizable fleet of 757/767s. These folks can be found easily via Google. Ignorance is bliss.

Somehow the secret computer codes fell into the hands of evildoers within the Bush administration, who surreptitiously used the remote channel on 9/11. Armed with the secret codes–––Vialls charged–––the conspirators activated the hidden channel built into the transponders and simply took over the flight controls.

More bang up research. The transponders talk to ATC and other aircraft, not the FMS/autopilot/HAL9000.

The story has an intriguing addendum. Vialls also contended that after taking delivery of a fleet of Boeing jetliners in the 1990s officials at Lufthansa airlines made a shocking discovery. By chance, they stumbled onto the hidden ROV system, at which point, according to Vialls, Lufthansa, concerned about the security of its fleet, went to considerable trouble and expense to remove the original flight control system, and replace it with one of German design. Insofar as I know, the story remains unconfirmed

Yes, its unconfirmed because its nonsense. I'll see what I can dig up on this....

 

[ktesibios]

Its actually pretty funny that the author seems to think a "hidden override system" would go unnoticed by technicians.

He, and everyone else promoting the "remote takeover" theory, seem to regard techies as a species of trained monkey, ignorantly perfoming procedures by rote without any understanding of the systems they're working on. I take this, insulting though it is, as an indication of their own utter ignorance.

I'd kinda like for this fellow to pay a visit to my workshop, preferably when I have a piece of tube gear with a nice high voltage plate supply on the bench. I could think of a number of entertaining ways to show him what an ignorant trained monkey I am.

Nice research except for the fact that the ELT is for crashes; its the ATC/TCAS control panel that gets "squawked". I would also like to know how a pilot could set the transponder to 7500 unless the hijackers let him as it takes over 5 seconds(depending on what the code was set at).

Burglar alarms often have a "panic button" function that lets you silently trip the alarm with a single motion and signal the alarm company to send the police. I've turned up a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that shows the FAA was considering requiring an analogous arrangement for transmitting the hijack code back in 2003. IMHO, not a bad idea; I don't know if the rule went into effect.


The whole idea of a remote-control capable commercial airliner raises a number of questions in my mind, but there are a couple I'm really curious about.

Let's assume that an aircraft manufacturer does develop a system that would do what folks like Vialls, Valentine and Gaffney fantasize about- take control of the plane away from the normal controls and allow it to be flown to a landing remotely.

A system that's designed to disable the normal flight controls is, logically, a system whose failure could cause loss of control and a terrible accident. In the regulatory climate airlines operate in, wouldn't such a system be subject to mandatory scheduled testing and maintenance?

And wouldn't that require that procedures for that work be written and approved, technicians trained to test, maintain and repair the system, and, possibly, specialized test equipment to be designed, approved, manufactured and distributed?

Wouldn't all of this have to be documented in the technical literature supplied by the aircraft manufacturer to the airlines purchasing their airplanes?

How in the @#$% $^%& (*@# could the existence of this system be kept secret? And what would be the point of doing so? People who install security systems in their homes and businesses don't generally conceal their existence; it's more common to put up a sign advertising "protected by So-and-So Security" as a deterrent to wannabee burglars.

The knowledge that they absolutely can't take control of a plane should be a considerable deterrent to would-be hijackers- plus, an airline that could truthfully say "even if the entire flight crew keels over in flight we can get you home safely" probably wouldn't be driving away passengers by doing so.

Or so it seems to me, but I'm just an ignorant trained monkey working in a recording studio.

 

[apathoid]

He, and everyone else promoting the "remote takeover" theory, seem to regard techies as a species of trained monkey, ignorantly perfoming procedures by rote without any understanding of the systems they're working on. I take this, insulting though it is, as an indication of their own utter ignorance.

I'd kinda like for this fellow to pay a visit to my workshop, preferably when I have a piece of tube gear with a nice high voltage plate supply on the bench. I could think of a number of entertaining ways to show him what an ignorant trained monkey I am.

I know and I dont understand it either, but I'd imagine you're right about involving ignorance.

Everytime I bring somebody to the hangar for a tour, I'll wander over to the overhaul bays and show them a hollowed out shell of a completey gutted airplane and proudly proclaim "This airplane will be flying again in 2 weeks". Jaws drop and I always end up being asked something like "How do know how it all goes back togther....!!" as if people hire on from the street and start blindly turning wrenches. I usually end up on some lenghty diatribe about skilled labor.

Burglar alarms often have a "panic button" function that lets you silently trip the alarm with a single motion and signal the alarm company to send the police. I've turned up a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that shows the FAA was considering requiring an analogous arrangement for transmitting the hijack code back in 2003. IMHO, not a bad idea; I don't know if the rule went into effect.

It didn't(yet), but its a great idea. There has also been some dialogue about inhibiting the "OFF" function of the transponder when aircraft are in flight.

The whole idea of a remote-control capable commercial airliner raises a number of questions in my mind, but there are a couple I'm really curious about.

Let's assume that an aircraft manufacturer does develop a system that would do what folks like Vialls, Valentine and Gaffney fantasize about- take control of the plane away from the normal controls and allow it to be flown to a landing remotely.

A system that's designed to disable the normal flight controls is, logically, a system whose failure could cause loss of control and a terrible accident. In the regulatory climate airlines operate in, wouldn't such a system be subject to mandatory scheduled testing and maintenance?

And wouldn't that require that procedures for that work be written and approved, technicians trained to test, maintain and repair the system, and, possibly, specialized test equipment to be designed, approved, manufactured and distributed?

Wouldn't all of this have to be documented in the technical literature supplied by the aircraft manufacturer to the airlines purchasing their airplanes?

{nodding}Spot on. No arguments here

How in the @#$% $^%& (*@# could the existence of this system be kept secret? And what would be the point of doing so? People who install security systems in their homes and businesses don't generally conceal their existence; it's more common to put up a sign advertising "protected by So-and-So Security" as a deterrent to wannabee burglars.

The knowledge that they absolutely can't take control of a plane should be a considerable deterrent to would-be hijackers- plus, an airline that could truthfully say "even if the entire flight crew keels over in flight we can get you home safely" probably wouldn't be driving away passengers by doing so

Very true. No doubt that future aircraft like the 787, A380, and A350(heck, even older Airbusses and 777s) could likely be modified to accomodate a 'remote takeover' feature. The technology is certainly there, and in this age of "smart" triple redundant airliners, it could probably be safely installed with precautionary failsafes in place should it(they) decide to go rogue. But I'd still be against any such system; I want my pilot to be aboard my plane....heck I'd prefer to fly the plane myself over someone on the ground.

 

[Myriad]

A system that's designed to disable the normal flight controls is, logically, a system whose failure could cause loss of control and a terrible accident. In the regulatory climate airlines operate in, wouldn't such a system be subject to mandatory scheduled testing and maintenance?

That just puts the whole remote-control hypothesis into clearer perspective, for me at least. Worth quoting, and bolding.

Burglar alarms often have a "panic button" function that lets you silently trip the alarm with a single motion and signal the alarm company to send the police. I've turned up a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that shows the FAA was considering requiring an analogous arrangement for transmitting the hijack code back in 2003. IMHO, not a bad idea; I don't know if the rule went into effect.

It didn't(yet), but its a great idea. There has also been some dialogue about inhibiting the "OFF" function of the transponder when aircraft are in flight.

And that, for me, is a fine example of the kinds of questions U.S. citizens should be asking, and perhaps would be, if the distortions of the trooth movement weren't creating such a pointless distraction. Who, in the airline industry, the aircraft industry, the pilots' unions, law enforcement, the FAA, or other government agencies, was pushing for this, and who was dragging their feet on such inexpensive, technically feasible, and obviously useful (obvious even before 9/11) measures?

Repsectfully,
Myriad

 

[CHF]

What's really bizarre is that despite somehow flying the planes by remote control the conspirators for some reason decided to replace one of them for the Pentagon attack and fake a crash of another one in a field in PA.

If you've got control of the planes and plan on telling everyone that they crashed....why not just crash them?

 

[pomeroo]

[=CHF;2373857]What's really bizarre is that despite somehow flying the planes by remote control the conspirators for some reason decided to replace one of them for the Pentagon attack and fake a crash of another one in a field in PA.

If you've got control of the planes and plan on telling everyone that they crashed....why not just crash them?

Isn't it telling that the loons will completely miss the significance of your crushing observation?

 

[Pardalis]

What's really bizarre is that despite somehow flying the planes by remote control the conspirators for some reason decided to replace one of them for the Pentagon attack and fake a crash of another one in a field in PA.

If you've got control of the planes and plan on telling everyone that they crashed....why not just crash them?

Yes but you see, remote-controlled airplanes are very expensive, and they used up all of their funds with the explosives already. Also, they had to think ahead and had to save a little money to pay off all the people who alledgedly saw a plane hit the Pentagon and the Pennsylvanian field...

 

[CHF]

Yes but you see, remote-controlled airplanes are very expensive, and they used up all of their funds with the explosives already. Also, they had to think ahead and had to save a little money to pay off all the people who alledgedly saw a plane hit the Pentagon and the Pennsylvanian field...

Oh that's right....I forgot about the budget restrictions.

Did you know that I actually had to lend Dick Cheney $50 just so they'd have enough money to make it all work?!

Took the jerk forever to pay me back.

 

[T.A.M.]

Do you remember when you were a child, and every once in a while you would go through your toy box. As you were doing so, remember how you find all these toys you had forgotten about. Suddenly you would grab one and say,

"Oh wow, I fogot what a great toy this is. I'm gonna have to take this out and play with it again."

Well such it is with the recycling 9/11 truth movement. I guess the guy was going through his reams of 9/11 hogwash and stumbled on this little theory, and...well you know the rest.

TAM

 

[njslim]

You are not thinking like a TRUTHER. What do you think would happen
to some airline mechanic who while performing maintenance to one of the
rigged planes stumbles across the secret control system?

Imagine -

Innocent Mechanic: Gee what is this box with all the wires coming out and
why isn't it in the maintenance handbook?

No doubt he would be quickly wisked away to a secret NWO center and
brainwashed into obedient NWO stooge. Or say replaced by a perfect
clone ala "STEPFORD WIVES" who parrots the NWO party line.

 

[gumboot]

I want my pilot to be aboard my plane....heck I'd prefer to fly the plane myself over someone on the ground.

This is probably the most powerful argument against a remote aircraft capability on civil airliners. Despite the fact that almost all airline crashes are due to pilot error, passengers simply will not fly in an airliner that isn't controlled by a human who is sitting in the aircraft.

If the public got even the slighest whiff of a rumour about airliners having remote take-over functions, it would be biggest scandal in air transport history, and would be on the front of every newspaper in the world.

And the only reason for having SECRET take-over abilities would be to carry out something like 9/11. And there's the crux. It's reasonable to CTers to consider that such a function might be totally secret, because they're ONLY thinking in terms of 9/11. They don't actually consider the original intent behind the alleged function, nor how it would operate in the normal world.

-Gumboot

 

[c4ts]

No doubt he would be quickly wisked away to a secret NWO center and
brainwashed into obedient NWO stooge. Or say replaced by a perfect
clone ala "STEPFORD WIVES" who parrots the NWO party line.

This is after the giant white ball...

 

[Alareth]

Ok, if we were to hypothesize the possibility that a commercial airline could be wrested from the pilots control by some hidden remote means, the most likely candidate for this would be one that uses a digital fly-by-wire system. In other words a small receiver that allows the control computers to be tapped into.

Of course this only leaves us a handful of aircraft models that would be vulnerable to such an unlikely attack. The Airbus A320 and follow up offerings from Airbus. No Airbus involved in 9/11.

AFAIK, this leaves only two available aircraft models commercially available to the airline industry that fit the bill. The Boeing 777. Again, not involved on September 11th.

I'm sorry, I gave it a shot and tried to find some plausibility in the truther claims on this one only to yet again come up short. I even attempted to weigh the argument in their favor by trying to think of aircraft that may on a snowy day in hell be vulnerable.

(If the preceding seems rambling or incoherent, sue me. It's late)

 

[apathoid]

And that, for me, is a fine example of the kinds of questions U.S. citizens should be asking, and perhaps would be, if the distortions of the trooth movement weren't creating such a pointless distraction. Who, in the airline industry, the aircraft industry, the pilots' unions, law enforcement, the FAA, or other government agencies, was pushing for this, and who was dragging their feet on such inexpensive, technically feasible, and obviously useful (obvious even before 9/11) measures?

Repsectfully,
Myriad

I think both of the things mentioned above(no ATC off, "panic" button for hijackings) will happen fairly soon. Unless a proposed rule is an emergency Airworthiness Directive, it usually takes some time to go from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage to full airline fleet compliance.

A lot has been accompished on the security front since 9/11 such as secure cockpit door modifications, which add a stronger door and surrounding structure, along with a remote access system, which buzzes loudly for a few moments after a correct entry code has been entered, allowing the pilots to deny entry if they wish. The access system can't be overidden either, if the door is closed - its locked. There have also been some cabin surveillance cameras installed on some aircraft, but unlike the cockpit door mods, they aren't installed on all aircraft(actually my airline has fitted only 1 airplane with them and they're deactived waiting for FAA approval). I'm not sure if the FAA has something in the works which will make them mandatory for all aircraft, I hope they do.

 

[Big Les]

Sorry, being thick here; where can I read your remote takeover doc?