DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Didn't those flights have SSFDR's meaning they have no tapes? I call BS on the whole article, Hell look where it came from.
How 9/11 was done
- Thread starter 9/11-investigator
- Start date
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
9/11-investigator:
Please don't assume anything you read over on P4T is accurate.
You have been shown repeatedly in this thread that many of the statements in the post you quoted are incorrect. Yet you jump on that post as evidence that the Boeing 756 and 767 can be flown remotely.
Demand the poster of that article provide evidence for their assertions. Because simply parroting them here will only frustrate the people who have already demonstrated that they are false.
It makes it seem like you are not actually interested in learning anything. It makes it seem like you are not bothering the read the well-thought-out and informative replies you have been given. Which is faintly insulting to those of us who have taken the time to explain these things to you.
The 757 and 767 run on hydraulic and mechanical linkages. This is not conducive to remote-control.
The g-limit thing looks like pure speculation.
Aerospace web lists it as an "unknown". Meaning they could not find any supporting information. I can find nothing on Boeing's website about g-limitations, either. It would be nice to know where the 1.5 g figure came from.
Also, the article talks about "software in their flight control systems". What software? There is a direct, physical connection between the pilot's control yoke and the control surfaces. There is no software intervention, because it not fly-by-wire. And even if it were, the 757 is a Boeing. Which means they pilot has ultimate say in what happens.
It sounds like the author of that article is thinking of Airbus aircraft, which are fly by wire and in which, unlike Boeings, the computer can override the pilot.
I direct you to these comments to the article you linked to (credit to the authror for not deleting them)
This has all been discussed in this thread before. I know, because I made one of the posts stating that Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are mechanically controlled, not fly-by-wire, and there is not intervening software system that control inputs are filtered through.
Please don't parrot claims that have already been debunked. Just because it sounds like it works for your hypothesis does not mean it is factual. You might want to think about the implication of the fact that all these articles you cite about remote control of aircraft are fatally flawed. Your hypothesis rests on information shown repeatedly to be inaccurate. What does that mean for your ideas?
And while I have your attention, do you have any reply to this post?
Please don't assume anything you read over on P4T is accurate.
You have been shown repeatedly in this thread that many of the statements in the post you quoted are incorrect. Yet you jump on that post as evidence that the Boeing 756 and 767 can be flown remotely.
Demand the poster of that article provide evidence for their assertions. Because simply parroting them here will only frustrate the people who have already demonstrated that they are false.
It makes it seem like you are not actually interested in learning anything. It makes it seem like you are not bothering the read the well-thought-out and informative replies you have been given. Which is faintly insulting to those of us who have taken the time to explain these things to you.
The 757 and 767 run on hydraulic and mechanical linkages. This is not conducive to remote-control.
The g-limit thing looks like pure speculation.
Aerospace web lists it as an "unknown". Meaning they could not find any supporting information. I can find nothing on Boeing's website about g-limitations, either. It would be nice to know where the 1.5 g figure came from.
Also, the article talks about "software in their flight control systems". What software? There is a direct, physical connection between the pilot's control yoke and the control surfaces. There is no software intervention, because it not fly-by-wire. And even if it were, the 757 is a Boeing. Which means they pilot has ultimate say in what happens.
It sounds like the author of that article is thinking of Airbus aircraft, which are fly by wire and in which, unlike Boeings, the computer can override the pilot.
I direct you to these comments to the article you linked to (credit to the authror for not deleting them)
This has all been discussed in this thread before. I know, because I made one of the posts stating that Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are mechanically controlled, not fly-by-wire, and there is not intervening software system that control inputs are filtered through.
Please don't parrot claims that have already been debunked. Just because it sounds like it works for your hypothesis does not mean it is factual. You might want to think about the implication of the fact that all these articles you cite about remote control of aircraft are fatally flawed. Your hypothesis rests on information shown repeatedly to be inaccurate. What does that mean for your ideas?
And while I have your attention, do you have any reply to this post?
Its complete rubbish.
757/767s are not commuters.
757/767s are not capable of autonomous flight.
757/767s have no software limits as they are not FBW aircraft.
757/767s are not g-limited, though there is an artificial feel system.
In 757/767s the pilots may do anything they wish.
- No, but I'm sure some carriers use added ACARS capability strictly for flight planning(not steering remotely).
- No.
- It isn't.
- I doubt it.
The database simply stores the latitude/longitude of all waypoints, navaids, airports and approaches(ILS) for viewing on the Navigation Display as well as flight planning with the FMC.
ILS and the navigation database are two completely seperate things. ILS uses VHF radio signals to generate steering commands for the pilot or autopilot computer. The airplanes uses IRS to navigate along the route, but not for a precision approach, which is where ILS comes in.
What happens during an autoland is actually quite complicated as you can imagine. The basic idea is that the pilot(or autopilot) steers the airplane onto the approach path with the ILS mode armed, once the ILS receiver picks up the ILS radio signals, the autopilot then captures the signals and steers the aircraft onto the centerline as well as maintain the glideslope. It does this through the same servos that are used for other autoflight modes. At 50 ft. radio altitude(or thereabouts) the FCC commands the thrust levers to idle and starts a flare until making a gentle(usually) touchdow. Once the main gear touches down the rudder servo maintains the runway centerline at some point until the autopilot is disconnected.
Please read the JPALS section of my article as it covers what you are describing. It's also worth mentioning that under autopilot control, bank angle is limited to 30 degrees and even less for ILS approches(though I dont know the number off the top of my head). Why is that important? It's pretty clear that both AA11 and UA 175 were banked well beyond 30 degrees at the time of their impacts. There may also be a number of inhibiting factors for ILS mode capture such as speed, rate of descent, etc.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
I apologize.
A Mod (dMole) from the pilots forum had passed this link to me, but this link was debunked by another truther in the same manner as you did.
Again, my apologies for this (unintended) disinfo.
A Mod (dMole) from the pilots forum had passed this link to me, but this link was debunked by another truther in the same manner as you did.
Again, my apologies for this (unintended) disinfo.
For the record, AA 11 impacted at a bank angle of only 25 +/- 2 degrees, though UA 175 hit at 38 +/- 2 degrees (NCSTAR1-2B).
However, this does not change in the least the fact that Autoland would have no chance at all to complete this mission for a variety of reasons, even had the complicated ground facilities been available, and somehow escaped notice of every other aircraft near New York City.
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,493
There's something else about UA175 that argues strongly against an autolanding system- or any other automatic system- being used to guide it into WTC2.
The film of UA175 impacting that the TV news kept showing over and over until it was burned into my brain showed the plane making a sudden, sharp turn to hit the tower.
That's not characteristic of an automatic system homing in on a radio beacon. Such a system would, once it had acquired the guide transmissions, have constantly been monitoring the error- the difference between the plane's position and direction of travel and those desired for a landing, and constantly adjusting the controls to minimize the error. If you used such a system to guide UA175 into the tower, it should have done so as smoothly as autolanding systems normally guide a plane down onto the runway.
An autoland system that brought a plane in hundreds of feet from the runway center line and then suddenly jerked it around to make the runway is a system that would never make it into a production airplane, because the airlines that buy the planes don't like to have their property or their paying customers treated so roughly. The engineers responsible for designing such an ill-behaved feature would have been firmly kicked in the butt and told to get back to the drawing board and come up with something that works right.
The film of UA175 impacting that the TV news kept showing over and over until it was burned into my brain showed the plane making a sudden, sharp turn to hit the tower.
That's not characteristic of an automatic system homing in on a radio beacon. Such a system would, once it had acquired the guide transmissions, have constantly been monitoring the error- the difference between the plane's position and direction of travel and those desired for a landing, and constantly adjusting the controls to minimize the error. If you used such a system to guide UA175 into the tower, it should have done so as smoothly as autolanding systems normally guide a plane down onto the runway.
An autoland system that brought a plane in hundreds of feet from the runway center line and then suddenly jerked it around to make the runway is a system that would never make it into a production airplane, because the airlines that buy the planes don't like to have their property or their paying customers treated so roughly. The engineers responsible for designing such an ill-behaved feature would have been firmly kicked in the butt and told to get back to the drawing board and come up with something that works right.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010066
Larry Silverstein began spending every morning at the World Trade Center shortly after he inked a 99-year deal to operate the complex in July 2001. The New York developer would have breakfast at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North tower, and then meet for several hours with tenants. But on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he was at home, dressing for a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, instead of at his usual table at Windows. "I had said to my wife, sweetheart, cancel my doctor's appointment. I have so much to do at the Trade Center," he recalls. "She got very upset and told me I had to go. As it turns out, that saved my life."
Lucky Larry decided that a visit to the doctor that fateful morning was probably better for his health and 'pulled' the breakfast. Larry knows instinctively what's good for him.
Larry Silverstein began spending every morning at the World Trade Center shortly after he inked a 99-year deal to operate the complex in July 2001. The New York developer would have breakfast at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North tower, and then meet for several hours with tenants. But on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he was at home, dressing for a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, instead of at his usual table at Windows. "I had said to my wife, sweetheart, cancel my doctor's appointment. I have so much to do at the Trade Center," he recalls. "She got very upset and told me I had to go. As it turns out, that saved my life."
Lucky Larry decided that a visit to the doctor that fateful morning was probably better for his health and 'pulled' the breakfast. Larry knows instinctively what's good for him.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Sorry to slightly redirect the thread by bumping my old post, but I feel this is a necessary point to make. The work done here to refute the notion of autopilot navigation of the suicide flights is tremendously well done, and of paramount importance to refuting 9/11-investigator's argument. Yet, there's another aspect to the refuted information that's important to understand, and that's that this refuted information has proven in more than one way to be inaccurate and unreliable. Which is the reason I brought up the point about the CVRs: To demonstrate the unreliability. It's very easy to verify what happened to the various flights' voice recorders, yet the source 9/11-Investigator cites cannot get that easily verificable piece of information right. Instead, the argument is presented point-blank as if it is true. Simple, quick searches of the 9/11Commission Report, or this forum, or other debunking sites, or through simple search engines easily provides information which demonstrates this individual point to be incorrect. That a basic piece of knowledge is utterly incorrect speaks badly of the research capabilities of the author.
Granted, if that one item were the only mistake on the page, then this point would be moot; anyone is allowed individual errors. Problem is, the source 9/11-investigator cites is riddled with errors. The mistake about the CVRs is not an exception, but rather is the epitorme of the sorts of inaccuracies that site's author enshrines in his work. People reading it must understand that the source demonstrates its unreliability in multiple ways, and for that reason should not be offered as a positive argument supporting conspiratorial proposals behind pilotless aircraft.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Luckiest of all, he has a unique ability to telepathically transfer his instincts into the brain of his wife.
How do we know this? Because he's still alive. An innocent non-telepathic man would be dead. So basically, the fact that he's still alive proves that 9/11 was a JOO JOB!!!
I wonder how he felt sitting in that building day in day out knowing that it was stealthily being packed with explosives capable of blowing the whole building to dust. Evil he may be, but you've got to admire his balls.
I also wonder why he devoted several hours a day to meeting with the very people he was planning to blow up. It can't have been for any obvious reason, such as concern about the tenants or the property, because as we know he was conspiring to blow both to Kingdom Come. Perhaps he just wanted to make sure that his victims were real people to him --- not just names on a bit of paper, but people he knew and spoke to. I mean, what's the point of mass-murder unless you get to be wracked with guilt?
So, your case against Silverstein in full:
* He's alive.
* JOO!!! JOO!!! JOO!!!
* Er ... is there anything I missed?
I think you should hasten to lay these facts before the relevant authorities.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Please say you aren't going to bring up 'pull it' as another one of your bits of 'evidence' that 911 was an inside job. How many bits of 'evidence' you bring forward has to be discredited in order for you to start questioning the information you are getting?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... you're kidding me. This is just a joke to provoke a reaction, right? You don't honestly think Silverstein is involved and are just poking at us to get a rise, correct?
Seth MacFarlane, creator of animated series "Family Guy" and "American Dad":
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Mcfarlane#Experience_with_September_11.2C_2001_attacks)
I'm going to start claiming that MacFarlane's travel agent had inside knowledge. The evidence is clear; he saved a favored client from death. Anyone wanna challenge me on that?
Pointing out a break in Larry Silverstein's daily habit, especially when due to another mundane and simply less frequent event (a doctor's appointment) means zero in the absence of information proving Silverstein had prior knowledge of the event. Throwing mud onto a person just to see what sticks is a terrible way to support your argument.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Unfortunately we only know of this story by the words from Lucky Larry himself. It would be instructive to attach sweetheart Klara to a lie detector. Note I am not advocating water boarding on her! After all she is not a Muslim.
Nobody is inferring that 911 was a joo job just because Lucky Larry missed a breakfast. Besides we have our dancing Israelis to do that job for us. Well known Dutch proverb: 'he who dances last, dances best'.
Darned sure he has balls. Or: 'wildcard, ruthless and cunning' as the Army School of Advanced Military Studies prefers to phrase it. I think that amidst all the sadness he at least was relieved that he had the remarkable foresight to insure his towers against evil Arabs. And that his close friend Netanyahu had his 'war on terror', now supported by the largest army in the world.
Not everybody is carrying the heritage/burden of 2000 years of 'love thy neighbor' Christianity with him.
My case against him is that he fits too perfect in the grand scheme of things. Leasing the complex 6 weeks before the attacks (complex had not changed owner in its entire existence) and insuring against terrorist attacks, his links with the highest level of Likud Israeli politics (with their Clean Break agenda), his hiring of an Israeli security firm (Kroll), his absence during breakfast as stated, his dedication to Israeli causes as the chairman of the United Jewish Appeal Federation of New York, the largest fund raiser for the state of Israel. And Larry was almost 70 at the time, had his best years behind him. Why not take the risk in order to have 200,000 American service men placed in the ME-desert for free to teach Israels enemies a lesson and become an Immortal within Jewish history. He knew that the act would receive backup from most of the establishment who already had decided that they represented the world's one and only 'Indispensable Nation' who should take advantage of the Unipolar Moment, after Russia's own Silverstein's had fleeced that nation. We're an empire now was the slogan du jour around 2003/2004. Not any longer. Russia got it's gift from heaven, Vladimir Putin. I can't wait for the moment that America's own Putin will find the courage to step out from the wings, aided by the American Military, once the truth about 911 comes out in the open, so we can bury the entire post-WW2 global order. That's the NWO I am buying!
Hey, that would be a nice scene: Ron Paul standing on a tank, Jeltsin-style, in front of Capitol Hill.
Can't happen, you say?
Doctor Evil
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,014
Oh my, 26 pages. And we are back to the 'argument from bigotry'. Lovely 
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Oh my, 26 pages. And we are back to the 'argument from bigotry'. Lovely
Ouch, archaic auto-identifying vocabulary straight from the ADL & SPLC. Browsing through your posts do not bring many surprises: 2 out out of 3 posts are about Israel, 'Bagels are Good', neocons, gefillte fish, 'Being a Jew was horrible in the early 20 century' (not in your Bolshevik Russia that's for sure, where all the 20th century misery and horror started and the rest had to go in the defense mode; you want me to quote your hero Churchill about it? Obviously no holocaust museum about that topic to be found in the US, since you own that place just like you owned the SU between 1917 and 1945).
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Predicting, not advocating. A subtle difference.
Why should all the fun always have to come from Danzig, Leipzig, Berlin, Bagdad (Holy Cow!) and Moscow? The world is yearning for fist fights between Ron Paul and Michael crappy little Ledeen; we want to see mud wrestling between Buchanan and Pearl. We want a boxing match between Jesse Ventura and Dick Cheney.
P.S. I did not know that Ron Paul had a past as a spy.
I thought he was a doctor helping delivering babies?!