How 9/11 was done

[Jonnyclueless]

I think this 9/11 conspiracy greatest hits cliche thread pretty much proves that 9/11 is the most boring overused conspiracy there is. It's all re-runs now.

 

[ktesibios]

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

Little problem with that assumption. First, we can safely assume that the as-built systems which operate the control surfaces on these planes don't differ significantly from the diagrams in the Boeing tech manuals, as shown in Ap's paper.

Y'see, while it might be convenient for conspiracists to believe that technicians are merely trained monkeys who carry out procedures by rote without actually understanding what they're doing, reality is somewhat different- we're not that stupid nor ignorant.

A meaningful discrepancy between what the service manual shows and the system under repair will not go unnoticed. If you were to go through the binders containing the schematics of the SSL consoles where I work, you would find multiple places where errors have been corrected in pencil so that the drawing correctly shows the actual hardware we bought.

I've also had the experience, several times, of discovering an actual stupid design error committed by people who were presumably much better-educated than I am, and of squawking about them until the manufacturer remedied the problem in the unit's design.

It's inherent in the design of the 757 and 767 flight control systems- at least as they're illustrated in Ap's manuals- that there is no way to lock the pilots out of control of the control surfaces. The Vialls fantasy can't be true unless the design of these airplanes is very different from what Boeing has documented in their tech publications, and such differences could not long be kept secret.

Moreover, if such a system really was built into the 757/767, it would have some rather obvious consequences. A system which can deprive the pilots of control of the airplane is inherently a system where failure could cause a very serious accident. In the regulatory environment commercial aviation operates in, such a system would be subject to mandatory scheduled testing and maintenance.

That means that the following would have to take place;

1. Specialized test equipment must be designed, approved, manufactured and distributed.
2. Test and repair procedures must be written, approved, published and distributed to the companies that will be doing the work.
3. Other system documentation, such as electrical schematics, mechanical drawings, assembly/disassembly drawings, parts lists and such have to be produced and inserted into the technical manuals for the aircraft.
4. Technicians have to be trained and certified to perform MRO on the system.

Unless you posit a super-secret NWO maintenance facility to which all aircraft equipped with the remote-takeover system have to be sent at regular intervals, your chances of keeping the existence and purpose of the system secret enough for use in a 9/11 conspiracy are slim and none.

 

[X]

X, thanks for the words of moral encouragement, much appreciated.

Read the paragraph "Dov Zakheim, remote control and the Pentagon" to see what I have on the subject.

The entire section about Dov Zakheim is a non-sequitur. You discuss his background and history, and make up some motives that sound good to you.
Then you discuss some ideas that people had for controlling aircraft.
You link to a brief of a digital flight control system (here, and assert that it can take control of the plane. But that system says nothing about how it controls the plane. It reads like a description for an autopilot. Someone with more experience in the industry can tell me what it actually is.
Regardless, the system still has to manipulate the controls. The brief you linked to says nothing about this. And it has already been mentioned a few times that the autopilot can be overridden, overpowered, or disconnected by the pilots.

The entire story is based on frustration with the official account, I just wanted to see how far I could get with an alternative hypothesis.

So, you have problems with the "official account", and come up with a hypothesis that requires technology that does not exist? You have solved nothing. Instead of making things up, why didn't you ask us for clarification on the things you didn't understand?
Just because you don't like or comprehend something, does not automatically mean it is false. i shouldn't have to say that, but it seems necessary, for such is the basis of your claims here.

Remote control was 'in the air' so to speak in 2001.

Here is a US-patent, filed one month after 9/11:

US-patent 6,641,087

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6641087

Summary: Anti-hijacking system operable in emergencies to deactivate on-board flight controls and remotely pilot aircraft utilizing autopilot.

Yes, remote-control aircraft have been around for a long time.

Your link to a patent, however, is meaningless. Why? because the patent proposes an idea not a system. It is an idea. There are no specifications for such a system, and it could not be retrofitted onto older aircraft like the 767/757 anyways.

As has been mentioned (as was the main reason I addressed this in my earlier post), those aircraft are not fly-by-wire. There is a direct physical connection between the pilots and the control surfaces.

Setting up a remote control system that the pilots could not see would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding the aircraft's control systems. Top to bottom. And if that was done, it would involve lots of workers, and would be noticed immediately by the maintenance crew. There is an exceedingly good chance the pilots would notice something was different during the pre-flight checks.

Alternately, you could leave the control system intact and instead fill the cockpit with actuators, servos, and hydraulics or pneumatic pumps. Not to mention that required radio transceiver (or whatever it is they use for remote control vehicles). You would have to have actuators controlling the pitch (yoke forward/back), roll (control wheel left/right), yaw (rudder pedals in/out), throttle (throttle levers forward/back), and a whole host of other systems. At the same time, you would have to have a system in place to inform the remote controllers of the plane's position, velocity, heading, control positions, thrust, etc etc.


And your scenario requires that the pilots and ground crew and passengers don't notice any of this until they lose control.

To give you a sense of what I mean, (Top Gear rocks!), showing a car retro-fitted for remote control. This is similar (but vastly less complicated) to the setup you have proposed the people on and around the plane did not notice.

This document...

[url]http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

... is a peer-reviewed study about the possibility of 757/767 having had remote controlled systems anno 9/11.

Conclusion: Increasing the plausibility of precision automated control of the two aircraft striking the WTC, is
the fact that each aircraft struck precisely the only sections within each WTC tower reportedly
upgraded with thermal protection materials, suggesting a clandestine relationship between the
visually spectacular aircraft attacks upon the WTC and activity pre-September 11, 2001 within
each WTC aircraft impact region, initiating complete structural failure within these regions not
generated by the aircraft attacks themselves.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

And now you have to explain how remote pilots could guide the aircraft to their destinations with such a high level of accuracy. This complicates your remote control setup immensely, especially given the speed the aircraft were flying at.

This is in contrast to pilots (and yes, the hijackers could fly) simply aiming the plane at the side of a rather large building and not caring overmuch where ion the building they hit.

And do yourself a favor: Don't refer to the Journal of 9/11 studies as peer-reviewed. It is not.

One smoking gun obviously is Dov Zakheim. He is co-author of the central PNAC-document, with the new Pearl Harbor reference. Document completed 1 year before 9/11. At the time Zakheim had been CEO of SPC for 4 years, a company that produced amongst others specialized remote control systems of airplanes (up to 8 at a time!). It is very likely that Zakheim must have been aware which type of aircraft had remote control capability. In april 2001 we witnessed the first unmanned flight from Edwards Airbase to Australia.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-01d.html

"It was in the air" so to speak.

The suspicion is of course that Dov Zakheim came to an luminous idea when this new Pearl Harbor idea was discussed during these meetings with his mainly zionist PNAC-pals. The idea was to find an excuse to invade the ME. This would be an implementation of the ideas as formulated in the Clean Break document (Israel benefactor), PNAC (US-empire and global supremacy) and the oil-motive; Cheney was at the time well aware of the impending peak-oil crisis, of which we have witnessed the first dark clouds earlier this summer.

You continue to overlook the main point of my post.

The control systems you propose could not have been installed without being noticed by the pilots, ground crew, and possibly even passengers.

Whether remote control systems existed for different aircraft is irrelevant, unless those other aircraft were manually controlled and had remote systems retrofitted to them in such a way that the retrofits were unnoticeable by anyone working on or with the aircraft.

It's like claiming that just because new Corvettes have heads-up-displays, that my 40-year-old Lincoln can be easily retrofitted to suit. You ignore all the other things such a retrofit requires.

I don't care who this "Dov Zakheim" fellow is. Until you can show that the flight control system necessitated by your hypothesis exists (and it is truly impossible for the aircraft involved to be retrofitted as such so inconspicuously), the question of "who done it" is meaningless conjecture. It's like saying a man could have killed someone because he knows how to shoot a gun, but not having a body, a motive, or a murder weapon. You would not make such an accustation normally (I hope), so why do you so cavalierly accuse Dov Zakheim of being complicit in mass murder when you have no evidence other than conjecture and ignorance?




Now please answer my questions. Not with dodges, personal opinion or irrelevant factoids. Answer it with evidence and reason. Ideas, or ideas of ideas do not count. Link to my other post in this thread.

Either you can support your claims, or you cannot. If you can't, admit it, and remove the flawed ideas from your hypothesis.



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

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? [1]) follows the movement of flaps (word? [2]). 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 [3]. 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.[4]

Numbering by me.

[1] The English word is yoke, I believe. Control wheel has also been mentioned.
[2] Flaps is the correct term.
[3] It seems you are unfamiliar with the concept of mechanical advantage.
[4] No. It is the mechanical advantage of the hydraulics system.

You have shown that you do not have a full understanding of certain topics that are central to your hypothesis. Fortunately, this can be corrected. Read the Wikipedia links I gave above. Don't just make assumptions based off of gut instinct (or you might wind up comparing WTC 1 and 2 to Pizza Box towers). Actually learn about the topic, and understand the consequences of your ideas. Especially what they require to work as you have said.

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.

As Hokulele mentioned (and thanks for the plug), background knowledge is necessary to being able to understand certain events. That is why I spent so much time in my flight thread hashing over the basics of aircraft designs and aerodynamics. I could have just come out and said lift is due to friction, and given the formulae for turns and climbs. But as I was attempting to reach people who may not have education in those areas, it was necessary ot cover the basics. Otherwise, people would have had no idea how the equations were developed or why they represent physical limits.

You can't argue from ignorance. You make mistakes, and won't even realize it.

If you are arguing things because you just know or feel them to be so, there's a good chance you argue from ignorance. And this is a skeptics forum, dedicated to education. The chances of there being someone among those who read your posts who understands the issue better than you is very good. Mistakes and ignorance will be found, and will be called to task. When you can defend your claims reasonable, instead of through incredulity or bias, then you have arguments people will listen to. Until then, expect your hypothesis to be torn apart, piece by piece, and its flaws exposed for all to see. If you have any intellectual honesty, you will learn from what people here say, rather than accuse them of being sheep (i.e. believing whatever we're told on television). Learn from it, and use the knowledge to examine your own beliefs and conclusions with the same scrutiny you apply to ours.

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....

Am I the only one who shudder at the thought of clipping a 7.5" long ceramic knife to my pocket? I mean, the clip is the reason they give for not needing a sheet, but unless that thing folds, there is no way I would clip it to my pants. And why only $9?

 

[MIKILLINI]

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

Is it much easier to accept Bollyn is right, rather than to investigate all his claims?
These arguments you bring up here are not new, in fact, they are a few years old.

You need evidence to back up these claims in order for you to gain any ground, but there hasn't been any evidence presented from these old claims to back them up...even years later.
So, unless you can produce the key element for these claims in the form of evidence, you are waging a lost battle.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

Thanks.

 

[Thunder]

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

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

Utoob.

 

[Thunder]

Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

Thanks.

why would the hijackers want the FAA to know that their plane had been hijacked??

"think McFly.....think"

and, if they HAD turned on their hijack signal, would that convince you that 9-11 was NOT an inside job?

is it just me..or do 9-11 truthers seem to willingly and intentionally abandon ALL common sense???? sometimes it is so very frustrating.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.youtube.com/v/tRfhUezbKLw

Here is the well known video of the Urban Moving Systems workers who got detained because they were caught cheering and high-fiving as the planes slamed in the buildings. After a long period they were released and appeared at home in Israel on Israeli television. They stated that they were there to 'document the event'.

How is this possible without foreknowledge as in 'they organized the event themselves'?

Thanks.

 

[Thunder]

I'm sorry..is this a general 9-11 conspiracy theory discussion thread...or is there an actual topic here?

 

[~enigma~]

Can somebody explain why all four aircraft did not send a 'I am hijacked' signal?

Thanks.

Are you really that stupid that you can't figure out they didn't because they didn't. Why is this evidence of something nefarious or is it just that you would prefer it is so you can sling your anti-semitic baloney about Jews, Mossad and Israel?

 

[Thunder]

i would URGE everyone NOT to respond to his new Mossad topic. it has been covered 1 million times here. let him use the search function.

 

[Thunder]

You want me to believe that in all four cases these tiny Arabs were able to prevent the experienced pilots from pushing one of the several distress buttons... with walmart box cutters?

.

are you aware of what a walmart box cutter can do to a human throat?

they are made to cut thick pieces of carboard. i wonder what they can do to skin, soft tissue, and a large jugular artery?

 

[~enigma~]

walmart box cutters?

Fugitive and felon Chris,

They have Walmart in Amsterdam?

 

[9/11-investigator]

are you aware of what a walmart box cutter can do to a human throat?

they are made to cut thick pieces of carboard. i wonder what they can do to skin, soft tissue, and a large jugular artery?

The cockpit door is not wide enough to let 2 hijackers in at once. If the first pilot has his throat slit then the second pilot should have enough to a split second to mobilize himself with stretched arms to avoid throat cutting.

BTW, nothing but really nothing in the life's of these shy soft spoken devout muslims give's hints that they were capable to such a sudden burst of barbaric violence. You're making it up just not to contradict OCT.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour_history.html

Hanjour an Unlikely Terrorist

WRH is just the carrier. The Post published this early after 9/11. No truth movement yet. Written by Amy Goldstein. Everybody believed he Story. I believe the Post now dropped the story, at least is does not show up as a hit.

Unlikely terrorist indeed.

Since he was none.

 

[Thunder]

so.....from "why didnt they turn on the hijacker alert"
to
"the terrorists were soft spoken devout muslim angels"

which derail would you like us to address first?

honestly, dude, all of these topics have been addressed....YEARS ago. why dont you just use the search function and look them up? all the answers your little heart desires are right there.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You want me to believe that in all four cases these tiny Arabs were able to prevent the experienced pilots from pushing one of the several distress buttons... with walmart box cutters?

They were not "tiny", being an experienced pilot does not qualify you to fight unarmed against armed men who outnumber you, and they were not armed with Walmart boxcutters.

The only references I can find to "distress buttons" on airplanes is on Truther websites.

 

[Thunder]

They were not "tiny", being an experienced pilot does not qualify you to fight unarmed against armed men who outnumber you, and they were not armed with Walmart boxcutters.

The only references I can find to "distress buttons" on airplanes is on Truther websites.

what? Kung-Fu and Tae Kwon-Do isnt part of FAA Commercial pilots training???

dude. we KNOW that airplanes have "help Ive been hijacked by Arabs" buttons.

we know that the Pentagon had several batteries of secret underground anti-Arab missiles.

and we know that Arabs not only cant fly, but they cant use knives or turn off transponders.

 

[Trojan]

Explain to me please why there need to be an explosive on every truss. It does not.

According to this scenario...


... here is een narrative that states: The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks.

That's 60 man-days. Or a crew of 30 in my weekend-scenario.

P.S. the same link has a paragraph "The Destruction in Manhattan". It states that placing of radiographic explosives in the elevator shaft is sufficient to bring the building down. This makes the discussion about power-down in the weekend superfluous. Essential is the availability of one elevator shaft closed for the public.

The full quote is here

The Destruction in Manhattan

The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks. The explosive charges, disguised to look like lighting fixtures, are placed on the roofs of elevator cars and installed on the inside walls of the elevator shafts by a technician riding on the elevator. There are no security cameras inside the shafts to capture this operation. A controller is placed on each floor to signal the dozens of charges on that floor via short-distance radio links. After the attack, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani assures, through his control of the police force and over city contracts, that Ground Zero is sealed off and that the evidence is destroyed.

This statement is not supported by any evidence. In fact, it is just a passage on a web page. Why do you think this is evidence?

It is in direct contradiction to EVERY controlled demolition expert on the planet. CDI are NOT conducted by demolishing elevator shafts.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

So again, what evidence do you have? Do you believe that the destruction of an elevator shaft could result in the destruction of a steel structure?

 

[JamesB]

BTW, nothing but really nothing in the life's of these shy soft spoken devout muslims give's hints that they were capable to such a sudden burst of barbaric violence. You're making it up just not to contradict OCT.

I am sure the same could be said for just about every suicide bomber in the world, right up until the point they detonate themselves and kill everyone in the pizzeria.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'm sorry..is this a general 9-11 conspiracy theory discussion thread...or is there an actual topic here?

The topic is the competition between the Arab versus Israeli Conspiracy Theory narrative.

I am perplexed I have to tell you that in page 10.