Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

[Iroquois]

I've read the von Buelow quote. I wish there was more corroboration, though. I would not say the derth of such claims from official sources is evidence that remote control systems are not installed in at least some commercial 757's and 767's. Such a remote back door to the controls of commercial airliners would be highly classified information. Imagine the national security risk. Imagine the risk to Boeing.<br><br>My above theory is just an attempt to work out a reliable (read "plausible") scenario while keeping as close to the official story line and public knowledge as possible. As long as the jets can fly (not necessarily take off and land) via computer control my understanding is that adding the local transceiver and designing and building the control station would very doable. Whether the on-board transceiver component to such a system can be grafted on to a plane in flight with equipment carried or checked onto a plane by two passengers (to allow for at least one redundant set of equipment) and be made to take over control of the plane is beyond me. The swapped planes theories would certainly make installation of a remote control interface to the flight control computers much easier and, therefore, much more likely to succeed in any case.<br><br>Of course, even without computer navigation systems, complete remote control systems could still be engineered, built, and installed in the case of the swapped plane scenarios. It could be done, obviously. But the budget, development time, number of people in the know, etc. would go way up.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

If there were terror drills being set up, then I would think they might have constructed such planes or installed the necessary equipment on particular planes in advance using that as the story. Or it's possible that some of the tech people on flight 77 may have been on board thinking that this is what they were supposed to be doing as part of an exercise. <br><br>I'm not sure getting the planes set up is the problem so much as what the story is to the bureaucrats who weren't "in on it" is after they see the thing went live. Since they're not talking, it's not likely we'll know. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

The original article seems to me to be classic disinformation in that it includes a lot of true information mixed with some poison pills.<br><br>I'm completely certain that both 757s and 767s include Flight Control Computers in which literally thousands of waypoints can be entered. Basically, any "legal" flight pattern through any number of x, y and z coordinates in airspace can be accepted by the standard 757 or 767 computer, which will then traverse this path handling all the controls for the pilot. <br><br>757s and 767s have the following technology onboard:<br><br> 1. GPS Global Positioning System navigation<br> 2. FMCS Flight Management Computer System autopilot<br> 3. OPS / OPC Operational Program Software / Configuration uploadable software units.<br><br>I think all newly minted 757/767s are fly by wire planes in that the flight control computers and "manual controls" operate through digital navigation, guidance and thrust systems. But older models (which I think all of the 9/11 planes were) were "old school" in that the flight control computer operated manual (and manually overridable) steering controls.<br><br>It's also my understanding that any software "g limitations" are for software controlled flights and that they can be manually overridden. And, of course, as any programmer knows, it wouldn't be much of a trick to override these limits for software controlled flights. I'm not certain, but this process is probably as simple as deselecting one or more administration configuation parameters.<br><br>I highly doubt that any standard 757 or 767 has any radio controlled capabilities. Of course, that doesn't mean that this type of plane can't be specially configured for remote control. However, I've never understood the "remote control" fascination of so many 9/11 "truth seekers." We know for certain that you can simply enter whatever flight path (short of a safe take off and landing) that you want into the standard 757 and 767 flight control system. The Flight Management Computer System autopilot will then control the plane for you, tracing a path through whichever waypoints you entered. So why the focus on remote control? It's nothing but a poison pill to make these theories look "out there" to anyone who actually knows something about 757s and 767s.<br><br>Note that if the flight paths were preprogrammed using waypoints, it would explain why gate delays made the actions of certain high profile BushCo figureheads look so idiotic on 9/11. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

More on the FCMS of 757s and 767s:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/ps02txt.html">www.boeing.com/commercial...02txt.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Iroquois]

Personally, I'm attracted to the remote control theories because they don't require the staggering discipline represented by four intependent cells of suicide pilots all driving those planes purposely to their deaths, a level of discipline not apparent in other glimpses of, for instance, the life (or lives) of Mohammed Atta. Remote control also allows for the most reliable means of ensuring that passengers and crew do not interfere with the flight once the plane is commondeered by the hijackers, incapacitation of everyone within the cabin. Remote control gives the operators of the attacks the option of spontaneous changes to the flight path. And, it provides, I believe, simpler explanations for the maneuvers made by flights 175 and 77 shortly before they hit their targets.<br><br>Maybe flight 175's last minute adjustment was the guidance system's automatic recovery after a combination of a cross wind and a hickup in the GPS system allowed it to get off course. And, maybe flight 175' s odd approach angle and resulting 270 degree turn was programmed in. Though the point may have been to pass directly over the White House as some accounts say it did, the rate of descent and radius of the turn sounds more like the work of a console cowboy than a course programmer. But, this is just conjecture, and I'm not any kind of expert on aviation.<br><br>My main reason for being attracted to this theory, boiled down, is that it seems to be by far the most reliable means to accomplish the mission. And, above all, failure could not have been an option on an operation of this level of importance. Of course, that is assuming that the whole remote control thing is doable. I personally agree that remote control is not likely a pre-installed option in 757's and 767's. I don't believe I would know if it was however. It just sounds too risky to me. On ther other hand, it does have a certain Cold War logic to it... Still, I did not list that as necessary to at least my argument for remote control. Heck, from what I gather about intel ops, if there was remote control interface to the preinstalled they would still install a completely different transceiver to confuse investigations of its use, even quiet internal ones.<br><br>And, while I appreciate the information you bring to this discussion, stickdog99, please refrain from the use of emotional language like "poison pill" in disparaging those who have a different point of view than yours. In fact, the outlandishness of using remote control to operate the planes would make it even more attractive I would think. If the method is so audacious that most investigators don't even think to look for evidence of its use and those few who do sound a little crazy. Well, that just may work to the perpetrators' advantage. <p></p><i></i>

[Mentalgongfu]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><br>Note that if the flight paths were preprogrammed using waypoints, it would explain why gate delays made the actions of certain high profile BushCo figureheads look so idiotic on 9/11.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Stickdog, I'm not all that up on my 9-11 timeline. Do you mind detailing which idiotic bushco figurehead actions you are referring to? <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

My main point is that remote control is simply not necessary. All 757s and 767s can, by themselves and without any human piloting, trace through any pre-selected flight path entered into their flight control systems.<br><br>Note that Bush, Rummy and General Myers all uncomfortably twiddled their thumbs without any conceivable rational explanation for at least 30 minutes AFTER they received the news that the second WTC tower was hit (from 9:05 - 9:35 EDT).<br><br>Bush, an extremely likely potential terrorist target, put all those little kids at the school he was visiting at risk for that entire 30 minutes. Why? Where was the Secret Service?<br><br>Rummy stayed in a "meeting" warning everyone in attendance about the imminent threat of terrorism. For some unexplainable reason, this meeting continued until the Pentagon was hit, at which time Rummy supposedly decided to play paramedic. He finally arrived at his command post about 10:30 EDT, more than 80 minutes after everyone with access to a TV knew the US was under attack.<br><br>General Myers told three conflicting stories about exactly what he was doing that morning. The one he finally settled on when addressing the Senate at his confirmation hearings on 9/13/01 is that he and Senator Max Cleland were meeting together to discuss the threat of terrorism when the attacks took place. (Notice any trend here?) Of course, this meeting also supposedly continued for at least 30 minutes AFTER everyone else in the world knew the US was currently experiencing a real, live terrorist attack in real time.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[xsic bastardx]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Rummy stayed in a "meeting" warning everyone in attendance about the imminent threat of terrorism. For some unexplainable reason, this meeting continued until the Pentagon was hit, at which time Rummy supposedly decided to play paramedic. He finally arrived at his command post about 10:30 EDT, more than 80 minutes after everyone with access to a TV knew the US was under attack.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Kudos.<br><br> This is a golden piece of evidence in the 9/11 report. Fuck the planes...where was the Secretary of Defense when the Country was under attack...taking a shit in the furtherst possible Bathroom? <br><br> And he doesn't show up unitll the PARKING LOT......at 10:30 or so......<br><br><br> What about the White Jet? <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Though the point may have been to pass directly over the White House as some accounts say it did</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Flight 77 never got any closer than several miles from the White Houser Capitol. Despite the contentions of various people- including Dick Cheney-, there's no way to determine what its was target simply from looking at the flight path. Presuming that it had a different target than the southwest side of the Pentagon, which is what it directly collided with... <p></p><i></i>