ARTICLE: "Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits"

Hutch said:
petre, just to bring you up to speed, the flight the CT'ers go on about on this topic is Flt 77, which hit the Pentagon. It apparently made a rather drastic turn and descent prior to hitting the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
As some guy named kikapurider ;) posted at the LC forum today, the 7G figure was apparently calculated based on an assumed trajectory, and with the 530 mph figure for flight 77. Given the flight path and the speed, it's simple to calculate the number of Gs. But we don't accurately know the flight path for one. Also, the 530 mph figure was the initial estimate of flight 77's impact speed based on the damage to the Pentagon. The flight recorders showed it to be much less than that, less than 400 mph IIRC. And this was the impact speed, after Hanjour rolled out of the turn, went full-throttle, and descended. The impact speed would have been significantly faster than the speed during the turn.

I don't think that a 757 could tolerate 7 Gs, but I don't think Hanjour's turn was anywhere near that.
 
CurtC said:
As some guy named kikapurider ;) posted at the LC forum today, the 7G figure was apparently calculated based on an assumed trajectory, and with the 530 mph figure for flight 77. Given the flight path and the speed, it's simple to calculate the number of Gs. But we don't accurately know the flight path for one. Also, the 530 mph figure was the initial estimate of flight 77's impact speed based on the damage to the Pentagon. The flight recorders showed it to be much less than that, less than 400 mph IIRC. And this was the impact speed, after Hanjour rolled out of the turn, went full-throttle, and descended. The impact speed would have been significantly faster than the speed during the turn.

I don't think that a 757 could tolerate 7 Gs, but I don't think Hanjour's turn was anywhere near that.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that post (I'm not registered at LC and never will be. Don't want to soil my computer ;) )?

I did my own calculations, and they're not even close to 7 Gs...
 
This nonsense recently popped up in a pilot's forum that I frequent:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=233975

It was initially posted in the 'Rumours and News' section but was swiftly moved to 'Jet Blast', which is the forum's 'junk' area. You can see the opinions there of the actual pilots who fly 757s, and who design and maintain the avionics.

For what it's worth, most airliners are only rated to about +3G, any more than that would risk structural damage. You only have to compare their long, slender wings to those of an aircraft that really can pull +9G, perhaps an F16, to see why.

As stated above, Airbuses are limited to 67 degrees angle of bank, which (in a level turn) corresponds to a loading of 2.36G (loading = tan(angle-of-bank)).
 
SRW said:
The guy who wrote this article claims to be an expert on cell phones but is talking pure garbage, 5 watt cell phones? How do you want your ear cooked?
Click to expand...

It's pretty much garbage. work with WCDMA (UMTS RAT). A WCDMA phone, at highest powerclass, is allowed to send at 23 dBm (Around 250mW) (This can be checked on www.3gpp.org, all spec's should be there). Then there's the;

If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on.
Click to expand...

Dunno what RAT his cell phone's using but 45s to go from power up to camping on a cell? He should def switch phone =)

Then there's the fact that most base stations have quite a long range (if you configure them for coverage ratehr than support high bw or lots of calls). Old GSM basestations can utilize multiple TRXs to increase signal coverage on the cost of supporting fewer calls).

Plus, I don't think I ever think I've heard base stations refered to as transponders. =)
 
Last edited:
It's pretty sad that they keep flogging the same dead horse...

Aerobatics, cellphones in the air, aircraft stress levels, robot planes...it has all been done. And their theories and ideas are just... silly.

-Andrew
 
I always marvel at these guys. Now, assuming the Evil Gubmint (EG) would really wanna do this, and the article is correct (I notice it gets heartily slaughtered on that blog), why would they make such silly mistakes? The cellphone calls are absolutely non-essential for the plot, so if they cannot somehow be done, why fake them? The sharp maneuvres are necessary for a hijacker pilot if he has his navigation skewed and is perhaps less than an expert pilot, but they would be a give-away and completely unnecessary for a remote controlled plane on a carefully planned mission, so why do it?

When your CT requires some people to be insanely evil and completely stupid, and still pull off the plot of the century, re-think.

Hans
 
Not sure how relevant it is to the planes used in the attacks, but the pilots of FedEx flight 705 had to do some real aerobatics to thwart a guy trying to hijack the airplane. IIRC, it was a DC10 and at one point the pilot pulled it out of a nosedive while the plane was about to shake apart. They also had to pull a crazy turn in the air to get it on the runway that almost broke off the tail stablizers. Luckily they all survived, but their injuries (from the hijacker) were so bad they couldn't fly anymore.
 
valis said:
The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.
Click to expand...

Umm maybe it is just me but the entire aricle sounds nuts. The quote above is one of the better sections of lunacy. And 'Norad can fly the plane by remote control'? I think I would like to see another source for that gem.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with valis. First, this would be an irredeemably stupid design. Adding a switching circuit to disconnect the mic signals from the CVR and route them elsewhere would be adding a circuit which had a low probability of being used for its intended purpose but which could at any time go south and fail the entire CVR.

Second, if your purpose is to provide a recording facility on the ground, there is no need whatsoever to disable recording in the air. If you simply leave the normal connection to the CVR operating and simultaneously route the audio to a transmitter for recording on the ground, you get your ground-based recording and a backup recording on the plane. Redundancy is better than no redundancy.

Adding a completely unnecessary feature which adds the risk of failing an important system. Yeah, that's the way world-class aerospace engineers think.

Perhaps this Heikkila whack is under the impression that a signal from a microphone can only be routed to one destination at a time. That's so wrong that there's no need to go into a detailed explanation of why. Suffice it to say that I can plug a mic into one of the SSL 9000K consoles at one of my workplaces and simultaneously route the signal to any combination of 48 track buss outputs, 4 stereo subgroup outputs, the six-channel main mix and 6 aux send busses, without degrading the signal quality in the least. (That's 68 line-level outputs, all being fed simultaneously by my one microphone.)

Heikkila seems to be adding his own fantasies to those of the late unlamented remote viewer, anti-Semitic hatefreak and all-around loon Joe Vialls, who, as far as I can tell, started the whole "the planes were taken over by NORAD via their built-in remote control facilities" load of manure.
 
Orb said:
Not sure how relevant it is to the planes used in the attacks, but the pilots of FedEx flight 705 had to do some real aerobatics to thwart a guy trying to hijack the airplane. IIRC, it was a DC10 and at one point the pilot pulled it out of a nosedive while the plane was about to shake apart. They also had to pull a crazy turn in the air to get it on the runway that almost broke off the tail stablizers. Luckily they all survived, but their injuries (from the hijacker) were so bad they couldn't fly anymore.
Click to expand...

They also rolled the DC-10 inverted and exceeded VNE (700+ mph) in a powered dive trying to keep the killer off his feet.

I've read about that flight before...what an amazing story. It's like a real-life "Halloween" movie, complete with an unstoppable speargun-wielding homicidal maniac, on a plane. :eye-poppi

There's a National Geographic documentary out there about this that dramatizes the whole thing and has interviews with the pilot. It might be linked from the Wikipedia article, I can't remember. Fascinating, but very hard to watch.
 
I tried to look more into the alleged high-G turn. The 9/11 Commission had a footnote referencing an NTSB publication "Flight Path Study - American Airlines Flight 77", but this publication is not available to the public. Then I found that Mike at 911myths.com has recently submitted an FOIA request to the NTSB to get this document. That was ten days ago, so it will probably take a little while.

In the mean time, does someone have the link handy showing how the FDR recorded the impact speed at significantly less than the initial 530 mph that was reported?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom