How 9/11 was done

[Dr Adequate]

You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.

We skeptics have discovered a third way that is e'en mightier than the twain.

 

[stateofgrace]

What is so exceptional about this. Aznar calls a prosecutor and invites him for a diner in the palace to discuss the 'international situation' and 'Spanish interest'. This is Spain, not Sweden.

Still didn't read the article I posted , right? Do try to keep up.

Spain is wrong to indict UBL and the US is wrong not to indict UBL, right?

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, it seems that Spain is "in the tank" for the New World Order. Any indictment from Israel, or does the Holy Land still evade the clutches of the sinister Jewish octopus?

 

[ellindsey]

The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps

The force applied by the pilot is amplified by a hydraulic actuator located at the control surface. The cable from the pilot's controls goes to a hydraulic valve located at the actuator, which controls the force the actuator applies to the control surface. Again, this is a completely mechanical system, independent of the autopilot and capable of running even if the plane loses all electrical power. There's no software, no lines of code to change in the hydraulic booster - it just does what the control cable tells it to do. The autopilot pulls and pushes on the control cable just like the pilot does, but its force is small and can be easily overridden by the pilot, because the autopilot is applying force to the cable before the force boosting, not after.

Please read this page thoroughly. It explains in detail exactly how the flight control systems of the 757 and 767 work, and various ways you might try to remotely control them (and why they won't work). He also goes into several different poison gas release scenarios to disable the crew, and what problems there are with them.

 

[Hokulele]

You are right. It is much safer to simply accept what they tell you on teevee.

Aha!

[Climbs on soapbox]

This is a forum hosted by a foundation dedicated to critical thinking. One of the most important aspects of this is to learn how to determine good information from bad. One of the worst ways to do this is to follow your pre-conceptions and biases. One must learn not only to analyze evidence, but also sources of evidence. This is where terms such as "Appeal to Authority" come into play.

Having a bit of a background in science, particularly physics, can help in determining the physical possibilities of much of what you postulate (see X's "The Physics of Flight" thread). Having a background in economics can help in determining whether or not the insurance/put option/etc. theories make sense.

When you do not have a background in anything relating the any of the topics, what do you use? This is a serious question and I would like to see your answer.

[Hops off soapbox.]

 

[ktesibios]

If you're going to continue to try to work "remote controlled planes" into your cheesy action movie script, you might want to take the time to read this paper. It's written by forum member apathoid, an avionics tech who works for a major airline and has extensive experience with the 757 & 767. It's informed by specific product knowledge gained from technical training and actual work experience, and illustrated with diagrams reproduced from Boeing's technical service manuals for those aircraft.

Ap starts out with an overview of how the flight controls on a 757/767 work, and right there the first big problem with a remote takeover scheme emerges- as ellindsey pointed out upthread, there's a direct mechanical connection between the pilots' controls and the hydraulic actuators which do the grunt work of moving the control surfaces. That means that you cannot lock the pilots out of control of the aircraft by putzing with the computer systems, because no computer is interposed between the controls and the control surfaces.

Read on and it becomes abundantly clear that to implement the "remote takeover" scenario, nothing short of a complete redesign of the flight control system will do. We can reasonably expect that this would be a project similar in scope to the engineering of the original flight control system- a cooperative effort among many professionals- and consequently difficult to keep under wraps, especially if the engineers and technicians involved subsequently realize the use to which their work has been put.

If your goal is to substitute a rigged airplane for a normal one on 9/11, your design effort also has to work under the constraint that nothing about the look and feel of the altered airplane can be different in any way from normal, lest the crew notice that their airplane isn't what they're accustomed to and refuse to take off until the weirdities are checked out.

In addition, you have somehow to ensure that some pesky maintenance tech doesn't open an access panel and notice that the control system guts don't look like the ones he's been servicing every day, or like what's in the tech manuals.

All that assumes that you've been able to switch four airplanes belonging to two different carriers for your remanufactured drones. Companies owning movable assets costing tens of millions of dollars generally don't leave them parked out behind the barn with nobody keeping an eye on them, so you're going to need some major collusion on the part of airline staff.

Is the inflation of absurdity required for a "remote takeover" scenario starting to sink in yet?

Perhaps in a universe created by the morons who write movie scripts anything, from the entire Los Angeles traffic control system to an attacking alien spacecraft, can be taken over by some geeky-looking guy tippy-tapping at the keyboard of a laptop, but the real universe isn't controlled by scriptwriters. You might want to keep that in mind as a general principle.

Now that you've received eight zarking pages of help from people pointing out the more obvious absurdities in your script, perhaps we should talk about what you're going to pay for the service if you manage to sell the damn thing.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If your goal is to substitute a rigged airplane for a normal one on 9/11, your design effort also has to work under the constraint that nothing about the look and feel of the altered airplane can be different in any way from normal, lest the crew notice that their airplane isn't what they're accustomed to and refuse to take off until the weirdities are checked out.

also it should be noted that any irregularities would have to be hidden from the groud crew as well as the flight crew

im not sure what kind of inspection is done before a plane takes off, but im guessing they would notice is extra hardware was spliced into the control cables and they would ground the plane

 

[Dr Adequate]

All that assumes that you've been able to switch four airplanes belonging to two different carriers for your remanufactured drones.

Actually, his scenario assumes that this stuff has been fitted as standard to all planes without anyone noticing.

 

[ellindsey]

Let me go over this again and spell it out clearly.

The 757 and 767 are widely used airplanes. Many, many thousands of airplane mechanics work on them every day. Many countries in the world fly them. If their control systems didn't match what the maintenance books say, airplane mechanics would not be able to do their jobs and these planes would not fly.

The 757 and 767 are fairly old airplanes. They were built before computers were as small, cheap, and reliable as they are now. They were built before computers were considered safe enough to take over control of airplanes. Airplanes being designed today have computers which control the flaps, elevators, rudder, ailerons, and other control systems. The 757 and 767 do not use computers to control these systems. They use a control system made up of all mechanical parts which can keep running even if the airplane loses all electrical power.

The pilot and copilot sit in the cockpit. They have controls which are used to steer the plane. They have a control wheel and rudder pedals. These controls do not go into any computer. Instead, these controls have wheels and arms which pull and push on cables. These cables run from the cockpit of the airplane's wings and tail, passing through and over many pulleys and linkages.

The most important control surfaces of the plane are the ailerons in the wings, and the elevators and rudder in the tail. These control surfaces are very large and heavy, and the pilots are not strong enough to move them. So each control surface has several hydraulic actuators to move it. Each actuator is controlled by hydraulic valves. When the pilots pull or push on their control wheel and rudder pedals, the cables running from the cockpit to the control surfaces pull or push on little pins that move in and out of valve bodies to let the pressurized hydraulic fluid coming from the pumps on the engines into the hydraulic actuators. That way a little force on the control wheel can be converted into a lot of force to move the ailerons, rudder, or elevators.

There is nothing in this system that requires a computer to work. It doesn't even need electricity! Airplanes have landed after suffering complete electrical power losses during flight because the controls are fully mechanical.

There is nothing in this system which can be taken over remotely. There are no computers or radios you can make to take control of the plane. To stop the pilots from controlling the plane, you would have to physically break the cables and then install a new system of servos and computers to move them instead. This would be noticed by the ground crew, and by the pilots.

These airplanes do have an autopilot. The autopilot is in the cockpit with the pilots. It has electrically powered servo motors which push and pull on the same control cables the pilots use to control the plane. It is just like an invisible person in the cockpit with a third control wheel and set of rudder pedals. However, it is not very strong. It is not as strong as the pilots. If the autopilot tries to crash the plane, the pilots are strong enough to stop it from moving the control cables. The pilots don't need to be strong enough to stop the control surfaces in the wings or tail from moving! They just need to be strong enough to stop the autopilot from moving the control cables.

The cockpit crew have another way to stop the autopilot. They can shut it off. If the autopilot is not responding normally and does not want to shut off, they can pull the circuit breaker which powers the autopilot. Pulling the circuit breaker physically cuts power to the autopilot. That cannot be overridden by remote control or software, because it is a physical switch in the cockpit. If that switch doesn't work, the pilots have other ways to cut off the autopilot. They can even manually disconnect all electrical power from the plane's engines and batteries and make an emergency landing! Landing with no electrical power is difficult, but it has been done before and is better than letting the plane crash.

No pilot is going to sit idly by and let the plane crash just because the autopilot is acting weird. If a plane is flying and the autopilot suddenly starts making it do something the pilot doesn't want it to do, the pilot will do anything he has to regain control. Even if that means sending someone crawling into the avionics bay with bolt cutters to find and remove the autopilot manually.

 

[lapman]

Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps



But I get your point and start to understand why in the narrative of 911research they build in an additional element:

The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.


But I am starting to feel compassion for you debunkers. We truthers are hopeless.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

I love when people that have no idea how an airplane works try to pretend they do.

 

[jaydeehess]

Excellent post ellindsay!

Yes I am aware that the 9/11 planes were older types, not FBW. I remember that on the forum in Holland, on which discussion my blog is based, we had heated debates over exactly this issue. You will probably agree that an autopilot controls servo's that control the cables. You confirm what somebody in Holland stated: that the steering pole (german Steuerknueppel; english word?) follows the movement of flaps (word?). What I cannot imagine that there is no mechanical amplifier between the steering pole and the planes that are controlled (a wing and tail). The forces on these planes at 500 mph must be enormous. There must be an amplifier. If that were the case then I cannot accept your reasoning that the pilot can 'mechanically overrule' the autopilot. It is the force of the servo that determines the position of the flaps

As pointed out the amplification is provided not by electronically controlled servo but by hydralics. You do not need servos to control a bulldozer or loader and the arm actions of the driver easily manipulte ton of mateial. The big difference is that long cables are not needed, the levers control hydralics directly. If one wanted to one could design loader in which the operator pulled levers that pulled cables which in turn adjusted the valves that control hydralic fluid. Why do plane do it the wy they do? One word - weight.

decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet.

"decapacitating" is not a word in te Englis language , Perhaps Hoffman meant "incapcitating"
Furthermore of "cabin pressure" was that which is foun at 28,000 feet then no gas woul be needed as everyon on board would be dead or near death already. Cabins ar never alowed to be at a pressure lower than one would expeience at 10,000 feet..
Pehaps Hoffman meant 'outside atmospheric presure" but he since Hoffman has opened hi mouth to prove he is an idiot on so many occassions it is likely that 'senario 404" is just another example of it

 

[jaydeehess]

please excuse the typos above. This hotel computer key board is rap :lol

 

[T.A.M.]

Was OBL and KSM at the Moussaoui trial? Moussaoui's mother was and thought that the son was drugged. Sad story. Moussaoui was/is just a patsy, poor sod.

1. You once again, like most truthers, are moving the goal posts. Earlier in this thread you stated that for you to consider evidence legit, it would have to be accepted in a court of law (paraphrasing). I subsequently pointed out that if that is the case, then you must consider all of the evidence presented at the Moussaoui trial legitimate, as it was accepted by a court of law. Now that is not good enough. Do you see the problem with this????

2. I think Moussaoui is a real good actor.

3. I think it is convenience for truthers, with their singular outcome world view, to pigeon hole all that does not fit, as either faked, or under control of the NWO.

The Bush-Administration marked Saddam Hussein as a dangerous Terrorist with WMD. This war would not have been possible without 9/11.

See what is happening now with Iran.

BS. Bush would have gone after Hussein anyway. 9/11 merely helped his case. He had revenge and big oil on his mind, and was set to obtain both. You will see what will happen with Iran...a big lot of nothing. Then what will you say, who will you blame?

truthers, constantly looking for an excuse to blame the world problems on the USG and the NWO.

Oh, and since someone posted a reply from 9/11 Investigator after I put him on ignore....NO, I will not miss you after you have gone down the memory hole...not one slight bit.

TAM

 

[9/11-investigator]

The force applied by the pilot is amplified by a hydraulic actuator located at the control surface. The cable from the pilot's controls goes to a hydraulic valve located at the actuator, which controls the force the actuator applies to the control surface. Again, this is a completely mechanical system, independent of the autopilot and capable of running even if the plane loses all electrical power. There's no software, no lines of code to change in the hydraulic booster - it just does what the control cable tells it to do. The autopilot pulls and pushes on the control cable just like the pilot does, but its force is small and can be easily overridden by the pilot, because the autopilot is applying force to the cable before the force boosting, not after.

Please read this page thoroughly. It explains in detail exactly how the flight control systems of the 757 and 767 work, and various ways you might try to remotely control them (and why they won't work). He also goes into several different poison gas release scenarios to disable the crew, and what problems there are with them.

I get your point. I assume that you refer to the situation 'as is delivered from factory'. For the moment I accept your notion that a pilot can overrule the autopilot for arguments sake. Have not given up my theory though.

The question is: was there anything like 'home run'/remote control facility implemented yes or no. Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Furthermore of "cabin pressure" was that which is foun at 28,000 feet then no gas woul be needed as everyon on board would be dead or near death already. Cabins ar never alowed to be at a pressure lower than one would expeience at 10,000 feet..
Pehaps Hoffman meant 'outside atmospheric presure" but he since Hoffman has opened hi mouth to prove he is an idiot on so many occassions it is likely that 'senario 404" is just another example of it

Fortunately we do not have to rely on air pressure if we can buy a timer at Walmart.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.

you may be right, but the trouble is such a modification going unnoticed by ground crews

 

[lapman]

I get your point. I assume that you refer to the situation 'as is delivered from factory'. For the moment I accept your notion that a pilot can overrule the autopilot for arguments sake. Have not given up my theory though.

Of course not. You must keep the fantasy going

The question is: was there anything like 'home run'/remote control facility implemented yes or no. Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.

The answer would be no for piloted aircraft. Either the control cables are connected to the yoke or they aren't. Add to that the fact that it must have a completely self contained power source. Of course, the it would have to somehow be hidden from the mechanics and inspectors.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Fortunately we do not have to rely on air pressure if we can buy a timer at Walmart.

good thing none of the flights were delayed

...oh wait, 93 was delayed on the ground for 45 minutes before taking off (the other flights were hijacked within 45 minutes of leaving the gate)

if timers were used flight 93 should have gassed everyone on the ground

also, its an extremely risky decision, if so much as one crewmember gets an oxygen mask on as they notice everyone else keeling over they can blow the lid off the whole thing

 

[ellindsey]

The question is: was there anything like 'home run'/remote control facility implemented yes or no. Because it is a piece of cake to make a mechanical facility that decouples the pilots steering pole and the autopilot servo. From then on the autopilot rules uninterruptable.

Well, sure. You could assume that some nefarious people took four airplanes out of service to install all the complex mechanics and electronics needed to cut the pilots out of the control loop. You'll have to pull them out of service for a while while you do that, of course, and it'll look mighty suspicious to have all four of your hijacked planes mysteriously pulled out of service and put back just before 9-11. But if you don't manage that, you'll have to somehow hide all the modifications from the maintenance and ground crews, at every airport that plane stops at, and make the system one that no pilot will notice until it's activated. You'll also have to somehow isolate and self-power the whole thing so the pilots can't disable it by pulling circuit breakers, and figure out some way to stop them from just sending someone down into the avionics bay with a fire axe to smash the autopilot. Remember, no pilot is ever going to just give up and let the plane fly itself - they're going to do everything even remotely humanly possible to regain control.

 

[Ravenwood]

Perhaps this is reaching, but wouldn't it be more cost effective & reliable to have several fanatic/dedicated operatives trained in fight crew operations & armed with these:
http://www.shomer-tec.com/product/cia-covert-cutter-318.cfm
On board the aircraft to take control of & pilot said aircraft? I'm just saying....