How 9/11 was done

[twinstead]

I see our intrepid 9/11-investigator is stooping to the 'throw a bunch of stuff that may or may not be right and see what sticks' debate style now.

It would be helpful if you actually responded to the rebuttals to your posts and questions asked of you instead of using the shotgun approach when cornered, 9/11-investigator. It's not like we haven't seen that tactic before. You need to question what supports your theory every bit as much as you do that which doesn't.

It's what REAL investigators do.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Scroll to the bottom for picture again and accompanying text: "The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal."

This is a comment added to the photograph by the compiler of a conspiracist website. The fact that this person believes that the columns were found in this state is not reliable evidence that they were found in this state. I could quite easily place the same photograph on a different website with a caption saying "The core column shown above the firefighter was cut by steelworkers during the cleanup at Ground Zero. The angled cut is identical to those shown in other photographs where the steelworkers are photographed in the act of making the cut. Note the characteristic metal flows down the outside of the column in both photographs", and I'd be a lot nearer to the truth.

And here is another instructive site showing the difference between columns sliced with thermite (as was the case with the WTC) and ones cut by hand.

It's showing that some cut samples in the WTC debris have runs of melted and re-solidified metal, and others don't. The statement that those with runs are characteristic of thermite is the opinion of the writer, and disagree with opinions posted here from actual steelworkers.

Why do you believe everything you read on conspiracist websites? Wouldn't you learn more if you actually researched things?

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

Of all the deluded notions you repeatedly post here, the most egregious is the supposition that anything in "Improbable Collapse", or any of the other conspiracist videos and websites you so faithfully believe in and slavishly quote here, has not been thoroughly discussed, dissected, diced, chopped, liquidised and consigned to the refuse dump where it belongs. If you manage to avoid learning anything else, please try to learn one thing: you are bringing nothing new to this discussion. We've seen it all before, and if you're not getting a reply it isn't because there isn't one, but because it's been posted so many times that it's become unutterably tedious to repeat it.

Dave

Dave,

I fully sympathize with your position. But remember nobody asked you to participate; if you think it is a waste of time then do not participate. There are too many responders already for me to handle single handedly. Or you could do something constructive and point to a thread where the "discussing, dissecting, dicing, chopping, liquidizing" took place in the past.

I would welcome that at least half of the current responders would pack their bags and go somewhere else just to reduce the backlog of unanswered posts. This exercise is taking it's toll on me as well.

P.S. I already pointed out which posters I would like to stay. I seriously mean no offense here.

P.S.2 as acknowledged by several regulars here, I do bring something new, that is an integral explanation of what could have happened at 9/11. Nobody has done that before.

 

[SDC]

Dave,

I fully sympathize with your position. But remember nobody asked you to participate; if you think it is a waste of time then do not participate. There are too many responders already for me to handle single handedly. Or you could do something constructive and point to a thread where the "discussing, dissecting, dicing, chopping, liquidizing" took place in the past.

I would welcome that at least half of the current responders would pack their bags and go somewhere else just to reduce the backlog of unanswered posts. This exercise is taking it's toll on me as well.

P.S. I already pointed out which posters I would like to stay. I seriously mean no offense here.

P.S.2 as acknowledged by several regulars here, I do bring something new, that is an integral explanation of what could have happened at 9/11. Nobody has done that before.

If you are looking for sympathy, you are unlikely to find it 'round here.

Please remember, also, that you don't get to decide here who you want to talk with.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Or you could do something constructive and point to a thread where the "discussing, dissecting, dicing, chopping, liquidizing" took place in the past.

A good place to start is at the top of the 9/11 CT forum page, where the Sticky threads are listed. On that list is the thread, Gravysites: Where 9/11 Conspiracies are Laid to Rest, which leads to the website http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home. On here are links to a number of websites, including the excellent 911myths.com, which discusses most of the main points raised by the truth movement together with links to the source material so you can evaluate the evidence specific claims for yourself. Also archived on this site are some of the best posts from this forum, again addressing specific truth movement points. Mark Roberts is currently working on a best-of-JREF-9/11-threads project, so keep a look out for results of this when he has something ready for presentation.

P.S.2 as acknowledged by several regulars here, I do bring something new, that is an integral explanation of what could have happened at 9/11. Nobody has done that before.

It certainly makes discussion more constructive compared to the evasions of the no-claimers. What I would like to see is how your hypothesis evolves in the light of what you've learned here. At the moment, it's not only unsupported by the evidence, but also falling short of the lesser requirement of not being contradicted by the evidence.

Dave

 

[Sunstealer]

I see he used a scattergun tactic to throw everybody off into other areas rather than answer the question that X asked him. I guess 9/11-investigator can't do the maths even when all the equations and data is laid out for him.

9/11-investigator - Why don't you answer the question posed in post #974. You seem very selective in who you respond to. X already stated that he will give you help if you need it. Why not take him up on the offer? Are you afraid to learn something new? Are you afraid of the maths problem?

 

[Dr Adequate]

P.S.2 as acknowledged by several regulars here, I do bring something new, that is an integral explanation of what could have happened at 9/11. Nobody has done that before.

Ah yes, this "integral explanation" of yours.

Conclusion: the core could not have been damaged as imagined. It was sliced by explosives/thermate/whatever.

You know, I'm not sure this thought is quite as original as you suppose. "Nobody has done that before", you proudly boast, and yet the all-embracing vagueness of "explosives/thermite/whatever" will in fact ring a few bells with some of us old debunking hands.

The "whatever" hypothesis, as we might call it for short, already has many adherents, because many Truthers before you have independently made the brilliant discovery that they don't really give a damn what brought the towers down so long as it wasn't the cataclysmic things that we know to have actually happened to them.

What you imagine "integral" to mean I shall not presume to guess.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I have been reading apathoid’s article regarding remote control and the planes of 9/11. In principle are the questions directed at him. The summary if for my own reference.

Apathoid introduces himself, rightfully identifies ‘remote control’ of the 9/11 aircraft as a central premise for truthers (remote controlled Arabs have yet to be invented), rejects the drone theory as difficult to implement (where do you leave the passengers; I agree), rejects no planes scenario (I agree again) and finally lands with scenario 3: remote guiding of the planes into the targets.

Is this easy? No says Apathoid and directly lays his cards on the table:
1. Crew is always able to intervene
2. Difficult to intervene from the outside in a highly interconnect system

Then there is a long list of abbreviations:

ACARS - Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System
AFCS - Automatic Flight Control System
EICAS - Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System
FCC - Flight Control Computer
FMC - Flight Management Computer
FMS - Flight Management System
LNAV - Lateral Navigation
MU - Management Unit (ACARS)

… to list the most important ones.

After discussing the electrical system a discussion of the autopilot follows and in particular the modes it can be in.
Next discussion of the FMS, which supports the AFCS.
And then there is EICAS, a sort of nerve system which is capable of registering more than 400 input signals simultaniously. EICAS is important as a warning system to the pilots (and maintenance crew).

Then we arrive at ACARS, the VHF 2-way radio link with the outside world. ACARS is also connected to the FMS. Then we are introduced to a ‘language’ called ARINC 429 with the interesting attribute that it is spoken by FMS, ACARS and AFCS. The this statement is made: “With a wiring, and possibly hardware modification, ACARS could conceivably take inputs from the ground to steer the aircraft using the FCCs.”.

Then there is the IRS, a sort of a navigation system (like GPS) but far less acurate (error of 100 or more). “To hit a target such as the WTC or the Pentagon, you would need to find an alternate position determining system if you were going to use LNAV for the attack. More on this later.”

Follows a description of the flight controls.

Finally we arrive at discussion of remote takeover scenario’s. “But, as we'll see, a bigger problem for our saboteurs becomes the ease at which these simple mods can be defeated by the pilots.”

On page 15 the route is described: Ground->ACARS->FMC->FCCs->Autopilot Servos.

Scenario 1: Autopilot - Used In Conjunction With ACARS And Other Systems Already In Place.

This scenario involves modification of the ACARS system to be able to input to the autopilot FCC's as well as the FMS computers, which will give ground controllers the ability to fly the airplane by properly formatting ARINC 429 data words and uplinking them. The ground setup would be elaborate, possibly involving a full motion simulator to generate the ARINC data. The ground controllers could then uplink FMS waypoints and have the airplane fly an LNAV/VNAV flight plan all the way to their respective targets.

(1)
…

Even uplinking precise lat/long/speed/alt waypoints to the FMC would be a problem because of the inaccuracy of the IRS system, which could in error by hundreds of meters as I mentioned above. The WTC Towers were 208' wide, a 767 has a wingspan of 156'. That’s not a lot of wiggle room, the lateral error can be only 10 meters maximum for this to work. The error in the IRS system would make the autopilot takeover scenario a terrible idea.


Question: but it would be possible to send the planes to New York to start with. Once they are there a ‘mystery plane’ is waiting for the two planes and does some final fine tuning. This could explain the strange flightpath flight175 took with this last (almost desperate) bend to the left, in order not to miss the tower. A candidate ‘mystery plane’ was indeed present over Manhattan.

As an alternative apathoid discusses the possibility of a stealth implementation of a far more accurate GPS navigational device. Conclusion: not impossible, but difficult to do.

Data link: Ground->ACARS->FMC->FCCs->Autopilot Servos


Scenario 3: Scenario 1 With Sabotage Designed To Disable Crew

The nerve gas option.

”Nerve Gas Released - This may be a more attractive idea”… “The only way it would be effective, was if it was released in the Air Conditioning System ducting.”

“Again, as with the above scenario, the pilots have a defense - their oxygen masks as well as smoke goggles. These oxygen tanks would have to be removed and replaced with tanks containing an agent that will incapacitate a pilot.” (2)

“So where exactly should these gas canisters be installed? My best bet is in the flight deck ducting. Since there are many ducts leading to different zones on the airplane, the air tends to be very local so gas released in the mid cabin would not likely find its way to the flight deck. To able to do this, the ducts would have to be opened up and the canister placed in such a way that it doesn’t move around, perhaps fastened with velcro. Why cant you just place the canister randomly in the cockpit? Easy, the pilots would see it.”

“Does the airplane have defenses against this? Of course it does! Smoke in the cockpit is a major concern in aviation, so there are systems in place to deal with it. The Equipment Cooling Override/Smoke Clearance Valve can suck the smoke out of the Flight Compartment, as well as the MEC, and vent it overboard. This would also have to be disabled: good luck in not having the Equipment Cooling BITE and EICAS detect the sabotage.” (3)

Questons:

- (1) ‘modification of the ACARS system’… software modification I presume? You said that ACARS, FMS and AFCS already speak the same language. This cannot be a coincidence. Why then is there no standard connection? On page 14 a ‘ARINC databus’ is mentioned. This sounds as if interconnectivity is almost a given.
- I read somewhere about changing software every month with a floppy.
- Does it have to be the control tower from which orders are taken? Or can it be everybody? Is there a authentication procedure followed?
- (2) Why does the oxygen gas tank needs to be replaced by one filled with incapacitating agent? Why not a separate time-released valve with a separate tank, placed in the ducting system. Here is a reference to an agent (used by the Russian during 2002 Moscow theather hostage crisis) that works within seconds, much too quick to grab for the gas/oxygen mask.
- (3) What would trigger the activation of the ‘Equipment Cooling Override/Smoke Clearance Valve’? Would it be effective in a time frame of seconds?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolokol-1
Kolokol-1 (Russian: Колокол, eng. bell) is an opiate-derived, incapacitating agent. Although the exact nature of the active chemical has not been revealed, it is a derivative of the drug fentanyl, possibly the extraordinarily potent carfentanil or 3-Methylfentanyl. It takes effect very quickly, within one to three seconds, reportedly rendering its victims unconscious for two to six hours. Little else is known about this agent.

 

[Ragnarok]

Of all the deluded notions you repeatedly post here, the most egregious is the supposition that anything in "Improbable Collapse", or any of the other conspiracist videos and websites you so faithfully believe in and slavishly quote here, has not been thoroughly discussed, dissected, diced, chopped, liquidised and consigned to the refuse dump where it belongs. If you manage to avoid learning anything else, please try to learn one thing: you are bringing nothing new to this discussion. We've seen it all before, and if you're not getting a reply it isn't because there isn't one, but because it's been posted so many times that it's become unutterably tedious to repeat it.

Dave

Well then, Dave, the least you could do is provide the relevant links for the OP. Or, is part of the JREF service, encouraging visitors to wade through 7 years of threads to find information pertinent to their 9/11 enquiry?

 

[DGM]

Oh yes, here an additional comment:

Here you have confirmation that the guys were indeed firemen. Scroll to the bottom for picture again and accompanying text: "The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal."

And here is another instructive site showing the difference between columns sliced with thermite (as was the case with the WTC) and ones cut by hand.

No wonder the authorities had such a big hurry to cart all the evidence off to remote places like China and India.

Could you explain why no one has been able to duplicate these cuts with "therm?te"? You guy's have had 7 years to try (what you say is existing technology) to do this, hell I even offered to supply the column. I can demonstrate these cuts any time with my torch (or lance (also not thermite)), when can we expect a demonstration with your magical "therm?te"?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Could you explain why no one has been able to duplicate these cuts with "therm?te"? You guy's have had 7 years to try (what you say is existing technology) to do this, hell I even offered to supply the column. I can demonstrate these cuts any time with my torch (or lance (also not thermite)), when can we expect a demonstration with your magical "therm?te"?

This could be the solution to the vertical column thermite problem. It's a device linked to a patent from feb 2001.

I have seen a picture of the device earlier tonight, cannot find it back. It's based on a cavity filled with thermite; after ignition the thermite is ejected through a nozzle and can cut very large pieces of steel.

 

[apathoid]

I have been reading apathoid’s article regarding remote control and the planes of 9/11. In principle are the questions directed at him. The summary if for my own reference.

Hi 9/11-Investigator. Thank you for taking the time to read my article on this subject. Since you've done so, that shows you are interested in learning and that should be encouraged in an educational forum. Oh and please take any article you read on this subject with a grain of salt and consider they may simply be telling you what you want to hear. And if there is anything else you are having trouble with or perhaps something I didn't cover, dont be afraid to ask.

Now to answer your questions:

- (1) ‘modification of the ACARS system’… software modification I presume? You said that ACARS, FMS and AFCS already speak the same language. This cannot be a coincidence. Why then is there no standard connection? On page 14 a ‘ARINC databus’ is mentioned. This sounds as if interconnectivity is almost a given.
- I read somewhere about changing software every month with a floppy.
- Does it have to be the control tower from which orders are taken? Or can it be everybody? Is there a authentication procedure followed?

I say modification is needed because the connectivity is simply provisional. That is, the ACARS system components(MU and CDUs) have the capability, but the wiring is either not installed or is "capped and stowed" for later use. Whether or not this function, which presumably allows the ability to uplink amended flightplans, is activated is up to the carrier. I can't say whether it is or isn't at UA and AA, but it is not the with my employer.

Yes, software is changed often. The AIRAC navigation database is updated every month, this is the database which displays all airports, navaids, approaches, etc. Operational software for EICAS, FMS and GPWS is changed less often, perhaps after an aircraft has been fitted with winglets or similar modification or when the aircraft is being configured for another carrier. Software is uploaded via floppy by the Airborne Data Loader. Correct software versions are verified by maintanence personell every few weeks during an "A" check.

The last part of your question would be best answered by a pilot or air traffic controller.

- (2) Why does the oxygen gas tank needs to be replaced by one filled with incapacitating agent? Why not a separate time-released valve with a separate tank, placed in the ducting system. Here is a reference to an agent (used by the Russian during 2002 Moscow theather hostage crisis) that works within seconds, much too quick to grab for the gas/oxygen mask.

Not to sound pedantic, but I will need a verifiable source. Not that I dont think such an agent exists, but I would like to know more. If it does what the article suggests, it would sure aid in the type of takeover you are considering. But please realize the other problems I mentioned with this approach(lack of accuracy, ease of detection, limited access to aircraft/time.)

- (3) What would trigger the activation of the ‘Equipment Cooling Override/Smoke Clearance Valve’? Would it be effective in a time frame of seconds?

It's a pilot operated switch. Upon realizing there is smoke, the pilot selects the switch to "OVRD" (override).
The flow of air is reversed and smoke sucked out through the equipment cooling ducting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This could be the solution to the vertical column thermite problem. It's a device linked to a patent from feb 2001.

I have seen a picture of the device earlier tonight, cannot find it back. It's based on a cavity filled with thermite; after ignition the thermite is ejected through a nozzle and can cut very large pieces of steel.

You'll note, if you actually look at the pictures and think about them rationally, rather than thinking "this looks like it proves my point therefore I'll assume it does prove my point", is that this cutting device is very much larger than the structural member it's intended to cut. How could these devices have been installed on, at the very least, a large subset of the 47 core columns, and on multiple floors so as to be able to initiate the collapse in the impact zone, without anyone noticing? It would require, at the very least, widespread removal of the drywall cladding around the core columns - in other words, in the elevator lobbies, where they would be seen by everybody working on any floor fitted with them - and the installation of devices several feet long projecting out into the public spaces. Perhaps you could get in touch with some WTC survivors and ask them whether they saw anything like that.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, and one other point: if your argument for the demolition of the towers is the creation of large quantities of dust, then this is an argument for explosives, not for incendiaries. If you're prepared to accept that the dust could have been produced without explosives, then you have to be prepared to accept that the dust clouds aren't evidence of demolition.

There's a lot I could say about whether explosives actually pulverise concrete to dust in the way you're suggesting anyway, but I'd like to see whether you've anything to say about the fact that your latest theory is based on abandoning what you see as one of your two strongest pieces of evidence.

Dave

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have seen a picture of the device earlier tonight, cannot find it back. It's based on a cavity filled with thermite; after ignition the thermite is ejected through a nozzle and can cut very large pieces of steel.

It's a way to use thermite to power a cutting flame. Why not just claim that they used an equal number of oxy-fuel torches?

Where did you get your "very large pieces of steel" claim from? The patent description says that it can cut things 0.25 to 2 inches thick at a distance of about 1/16 to 1/4 of an inch.

The preferable range of thickness t for materials cut by the apparatus 1 of the present invention is about 0.25 to 2 inches. The region where the cutting apparatus 1 performs its cutting function on these materials is preferably of a substantially uniform thickness.

Referring again to FIGS. 1 and 2, the apparatus 1 for cutting target material of the present invention is designed to space a portion or end of the elongated nozzle 6 from the surface 10 of the target material 11 by a standoff distance SD based on the thickness t of the target material 11. This standoff distance SD or nozzle standoff may be from about 1/16 to 1/4 of an inch from the surface 10 of the target material 11 to be cut.​

Slicing all the way round one those columns would be something of a job, to be performed either by fanatical teams of suicide column-cutters or remote-controlled robots.

 

[A W Smith]

You'll note, if you actually look at the pictures and think about them rationally, rather than thinking "this looks like it proves my point therefore I'll assume it does prove my point", is that this cutting device is very much larger than the structural member it's intended to cut. How could these devices have been installed on, at the very least, a large subset of the 47 core columns, and on multiple floors so as to be able to initiate the collapse in the impact zone, without anyone noticing? It would require, at the very least, widespread removal of the drywall cladding around the core columns - in other words, in the elevator lobbies, where they would be seen by everybody working on any floor fitted with them - and the installation of devices several feet long projecting out into the public spaces. Perhaps you could get in touch with some WTC survivors and ask them whether they saw anything like that.

Dave

Exactly As i already pointed out with this very same device many pages ago. I am not going to go searching for my post but i am almost certain it is in this thread.

911 investigator. do you remember my post RE: a device the size of a group of sofas surrounding the columns?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Hi 9/11-Investigator. Thank you for taking the time to read my article on this subject. Since you've done so, that shows you are interested in learning and that should be encouraged in an educational forum. Oh and please take any article you read on this subject with a grain of salt and consider they may simply be telling you what you want to hear. And if there is anything else you are having trouble with or perhaps something I didn't cover, dont be afraid to ask.

Now to answer your questions:

Thanks for taking the time!

I say modification is needed because the connectivity is simply provisional. That is, the ACARS system components(MU and CDUs) have the capability, but the wiring is either not installed or is "capped and stowed" for later use. Whether or not this function, which presumably allows the ability to uplink amended flightplans, is activated is up to the carrier. I can't say whether it is or isn't at UA and AA, but it is not the with my employer.

In your article on page 10 you say: 'With a wiring, and possibly hardware modification, ACARS could conceivably take inputs from the ground to steer the aircraft using the FCCs'

Questions:

- Are you aware of ANY airliner which has this capability installed and working?
- Or at least seen test reports that it worked?
- Is this capability mentioned in your maintenance manuals?
- Are you aware of any documentation regarding this subject on the web?

Yes, software is changed often. The AIRAC navigation database is updated every month, this is the database which displays all airports, navaids, approaches, etc. Operational software for EICAS, FMS and GPWS is changed less often, perhaps after an aircraft has been fitted with winglets or similar modification or when the aircraft is being configured for another carrier. Software is uploaded via floppy by the Airborne Data Loader. Correct software versions are verified by maintanence personell every few weeks during an "A" check.

On page 6 you say that the AFCS has a mode called 'autoland'. I may assume that the aircraft is able to land using the data in the AIRAC database alone? If that is indeed the case then how is it possible to land safely while at the same time you say that the IRS navigation system has a low accuracy (error of 100 meters or more)? The probably answer lies here: In the definition of the term autoland you mention ILS. Wikipedia makes clear that ILS = "Instrument landing system".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system

Questions:

- How do the AIRAC database data and ILS cooperate? Is the database used for the initial approach and the ILS for the final fine tuning?
- Is it conceivable that ILS-like beacons were placed in both twin towers?

The last part of your question would be best answered by a pilot or air traffic controller.

For that purpose I just registered as 'JohnDoe' on the pilotsfor911truth forum.

Not to sound pedantic, but I will need a verifiable source. Not that I dont think such an agent exists, but I would like to know more. If it does what the article suggests, it would sure aid in the type of takeover you are considering. But please realize the other problems I mentioned with this approach(lack of accuracy, ease of detection, limited access to aircraft/time.)

I would sure like to know more as well.

It's a pilot operated switch. Upon realizing there is smoke, the pilot selects the switch to "OVRD" (override).
The flow of air is reversed and smoke sucked out through the equipment cooling ducting.

OK. If it turned out to be true that 1-3 seconds are enough to disable the pilots than the reaction time + 'air sucking time' combined would not be enough for the pilots to intervene.

 

[9/11-investigator]

http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

Interesting link from the pilotsfor911truth forum.

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Can somebody comments on this, that only in remote control mode it is possible for the planes to exceed 1,5 G-forces?

And then this:

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

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.

Maybe apathoid can comment on this?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank.

The CVR's (and FDRs, by the way) for Flights 11 and 175 were never recovered at all. Flight 77's CVR was recovered, but too badly burned to be usable. That's very different from being blank. Flight 93's CVR was in fact recovered, and in fact, recordings from it were used in the Moussaoui trial. The CVR did in fact record the final moments of UA93.

The author of the source you cite is quite simply wrong.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

Interesting link from the pilotsfor911truth forum.

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Can somebody comments on this, that only in remote control mode it is possible for the planes to exceed 1,5 G-forces?

And then this:

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

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.

Maybe apathoid can comment on this?

No the 757 and 767 are not autonomous planes. Wrong on this. P4t are not good at 9/11 or real information they on sell implications of lies.

Sorry, there are no limits on the plane, this would make it impossible to recover from sever upsets and everyone would die. This is a lie, where did you find this tripe?

The pilot can override the autopilot and there are no limits on the G force except the ability of the plane to survive the maneuver.

The plane at the Pentagon never pulled 5 or 7 Gs, it only pulled 1.7 Gs. Oops, this proves the 1.5 G is a lie.

Then you posted some more junk ideas on how to override the stuff that is not on a 757/767.

There is no remote control of the planes, and the pilot can easily pull 2 Gs in a 60 degree bank turn to save the plane, and up to the limit of the wing breaking, maybe 5 or 6 Gs to save his plane. You have found pure junk on this subject.

The voice recorder I think was solid state, no tape. Anything the p4t guys post is usually junk.