Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

by **xsic bastardx** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:54 am

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits by Jim Heikkila Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11. 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 can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. 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. [Google "Raytheon Global Hawk system"] Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it. 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. Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I'd bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now. Our information IS controlled The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft. It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons. When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. 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. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts. I hope I made sense, if you have questions I will respond if possible. If I do not respond, please research this out yourself, search the Boeing site, search the DARPA site, search where you have not searched before. Some of the information is classified and leaked by individuals, and it is also being scoured from the net. I have all of the original documents on my computer to safeguard against this. Please do not ignore this, because only Norad has the flight codes for those aircraft, we did 911 to ourselves. Hitler had the Reichstag, we have 911. If 911 proves to not be enough to make the US citizenry set aside its rights for safety, the people who did 911 most certainly have access to nuclear material. 911 must be exposed for what it was before that material is used. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: RESPONSE I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified "Privileged" Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified "Privileged" Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance. Additionally, MOS33Q10 describes wire and/or transmitted data interplay, consistent with PIC (Pilot In Command) responsibilities of flight safety, as PIC is expressly required to KNOW that: FAA certified pilots, expressly embodies the PIC with full responsibilities of all flight safety explicit ALSO, as a Licensed Radio Operator in accordance with FCC communication rules, critical concerns of electronic interference with flight critical systems, and other capabilities/limitations of electronic devices [Original Equipment or not] as part of total onboard equipment. To include such knowledge necessary, concerning functionality and limitations of hand-held, non-amplified, standard private cellular phones, un-repeated through nonexistent equipment, not installed aboard commercial aircraft of the time. These purportedly "private" cellular calls MUST therefore be considered a hoax (not real). Of utmost importance, so please publish and disseminate to all concerned: I hereby challenge all other pilots, those who have accepted the gift of wings and a duty to their trusting passengers, for remaining silent before the ears of humanity pertaining to a dangerous delusion, and thus allowed to permeate that same humanity, concerning the skies over the eastern region of North America, September 11, 2001. Because of this general silence, I can no longer accept these people as MY true brethren, nor the FAA as a legitimate regulatory body who's utmost concern has been "human safety", or so declared. That because of this ongoing silence (licensing body intimidation?), I hereby deny the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration to "Privilege" my right to command and enjoy the apparatus of flight. None-the-less, I retain my natural duty and responsibility to the safety of my person and passengers, including those otherwise bound to Earth. I so challenge other pilots to consider the appropriateness of allowing an administration to "License" them as well, while in conflict with this overriding duty to human safety. I so retain the FAA issued paper "proof" of my pilot training, and formal recognition as competent airman, merely as historical artifact. The "authorizing" seal and signature displayed on these artifacts, is no longer considered by me as lawfully valid, nor am I bound by the terms outlined through such a charter. The first implicit duty of Pilot In Command (that of safety), remains unchanged. To be absolutely clear, I will hold in contempt, any man or woman who considers themselves' "Pilot" for taking to the controls of air worthy machines, yet does not vocalize a clear stand upon such an underlying principal, that of a pilot dependent upon truth. I do not recognize the justice of liars "owning" the sky, for one can not retain their wings soaring upon an air of untruth. This will merely ground all of humankind, and THAT is not my destiny. A pilot, Erin Sebastian Myers

by **NewKid** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:57 am

Can you add a link for that one as well as the Bob Lazar thread?

by **xsic bastardx** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:59 am

<a href="http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html">www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html</a> <a href="http://www.rense.com/general72/recoll.htm" target="top">www.rense.com/general72/recoll.htm</a>

by **NewKid** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:09 am

thanx

by **FourthBase** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:46 am

What's your thoughts on this NewKid?

by **NewKid** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:15 pm

I don't know, FB. I've seen a bunch of these type of articles before. I really have no idea what the software limits on planes are or what happens to the recordings when you remote control, etc. (although I've heard what he said several times from other people talking about this). The cell calls are unlikely in my view, but I don't know if they're impossible. There are supposedly anecdotal reports of people getting a connection up in the air before 9-11, but it probably depends on where you are, how high, how fast, etc. And it's a bit of logical leap to say that if they couldn't have made the cell calls, then they must have been faked. If I were arguing the official story, I would be pushing the idea that they all came from the airphones. (And with stuff like Mark Bingham, I'd argue that he said "Hi Mom, it's Mark Bingham" because there was a GTE operator connecting him and he was talking into one of those "say your name" recordings or he was trying to let the operator let his mother know who it was -- that is if I were defending the official story.) The bottom line is many of the stories are contradictory on whether the caller was really on a cell phone or an airphone and so we really don't know what the hell happened. We need to see all the phone bills, credit cards, air phone records, etc., preferably the copies that the passengers themselves received posthumously, if they did. Another (remote) possibility is that the calls were real, but made from a different plane or a different location or on board that plane with the passengers told to make pretext panic calls as a subterfuge to trick other terrorists. My feeling on flight 93 is that those calls were probably substantially real and made from air phones. I think what the passengers did on 93 was about what you'd expect to see when some skinny kids with box cutters come aboard and tell you they're taking over the plane. I also think that having the plane crash (not saying it wasn't shot down) is what you would expect too. Ziad Jarrah is the most capable of these guys and he's at the helm and can't seem to fly and/or is getting overtaken by passengers (note there are a bunch of DU threads commenting on the inconsistencies of the recordings played for the families, the media and the Moussaoiu trial, so I'm not sure what to make of all that). Hani Hanjour on the other hand, seems to effortlessly take over flight 77 from an ace fighter pilot with surivial, evasion, resistance and escape training (and don't forget the co-pilot). And none of the regular passengers other than Babs Olsen (Flight attendant Renee May calls at some point supposedly, but she says there are six hijackers, and so I think her parents need to be interviewed first hand -- by someone other than the FBI -- to really hash this call out) seems to want to call home from the Ohio trip back to Washington. Anyway, we simply have insufficient information to come to a conclusion. I don't know if this guy is right or not; there are a bunch of these type of articles on both sides (the planes and/or hijackers couldn't have done it; no the hijackers could easily have done it because you just point and aim the plane, etc.). My view is the first order of business is to conclusively establish all 19 hijackers are on the right planes. That means seeing one correct manifest for each flight, something that seems to trouble the official version. It means showing all the surveillance cameras of all the hijackers (and the all the passengers really) going through security at the right airports with the right date and time stamps, etc. It means confirming everyone had a ticket, and a boarding pass, and explaining rental cars in multiple locations. It means explaing who mosear caned or whoever really is. It means going and actually interviewing and filming the so-called living hijackers and making sure that's the same face that's on the posters of the 19 (or not), etc. Then we can get to what they were doing on the flight and who these guys really were. How much training did they have? Would Osama have trusted and used these guys given who they are? Why did they go out their way to get noticed so much? Would a savvy terrorist really do the stuff that Atta did when he was trying to get a loan for a crop duster? Would terrorists who could sneak a bomb or gun (as some reports have) really go in with box cutters as the primary weapon? How could they know what the passengers or the crew would do? How could they make sure the mission would have a serious chance of succeeding, ex ante? Why does Aukai Collins say for sure Hanjour wasn't in Al Quaeda? Why is the FAA guy trying to get the flight school to violate FAA regs on a written test that Hani can't pass because his English sucks? And on and on.

by **NewKid** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:15 pm

Another interesting question is who the hell is this guy? (note the names). <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/MM00113-1.jpg" target="top">www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/MM00113-1.jpg</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta" target="top">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta</a> Note 'Paul Thompson's' remarks in comment 3 too. <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x85300" target="top">www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x85300</a>

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:43 pm

That software thing would be a smoking gun...if it's true. Seems like some aspects should be verifiable...i.e. if such remote control software is on these planes. I've seen many theories about how it's possible to fly a plane remotely (undisputed) but these theories were based on this having been added surreptitiously. If it was already there that would be of definite interest.

by **slimmouse** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:19 pm

Whenever I see a thread like this, Im always reminded of good old Thoughtographer. Man, even I miss him. I can remember once asking him what he thought hit the pentagon, and his inimitable intellectual cryptic fashion, he came out with one of the all time classic funnies; "It was an Airplane" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **Dreams End** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:33 pm

Yeah, there's some dispute whether the hologram was remote controlled or not. Meanwhile, if anyone has time to research this, seems like whether or not these planes have this software would be easy to verify. I have to do boring work stuff.

by **FourthBase** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"It was an Airplane"<hr></blockquote> What's funny about that?

by **slimmouse** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What's funny about that? <hr></blockquote> Its perhaps an English thing, but I thought the correct spelling, was Aeroplane, as contrasted by the amusing title of the Lesley Nielson movie

by **5E6A** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:40 pm

Did some oogooling. Seems most of the non-conspiracy sites say something along the lines of the 777 is the first airliner to have full digital fly-by-wire, which could be flown by computer. Previously there is vagueness about the extent to which flight controls are electronic. It is plausable, however, that the 767/757 could have had analogue fly-by-wire which in theory could also be computer flown. From one site: Some Opinions on Aviation Computer Safety Answers to Questions from Vincent Verweij Peter Ladkin Technische Fakultät, Universität Bielefeld ladkin@rvs.uni-bielefeld.de 20 October 1996, footnote added 23 October On 16 September 1996, Vincent Verweij, a journalist with Zembla, the Dutch National Television Channel 3, asked me some questions about computer safety in aviation. The questions were pitched at a public-interest level, higher than the more technical level at which we techies tend to talk with each other. They are perceptive questions. Some feedback from colleagues has been included in my answers. Victor used the term fly-by-wire to refer to all types of cockpit automation. This term has become a public 'buzzword' for computers-in-the-cockpit. However, the concept fly-by-wire means to technical people the replacement of the physical link between the pilot's flight controls - the controls that make the aircraft go up and down and turn left or right - with an electronic link through a computer. This is a strictly narrower sense than that of the 'buzzword'. There are many other computers in the cockpit - flight management and navigation computers, flight data computers for airspeed and so on, autopilots, computers to control the engines, and warning systems such as TCAS. These can also be critical for flight safety - see reports on the Puerto Plata B757 accident, and the Martinair B767 and A340 Flight Management Guidance System problem reports. Accordingly, I have edited Vincent's questions to replace the term 'fly-by-wire' by a buzzword I prefer: computers-in-the-cockpit, CIC. ..... ...... The second thing it tells us is that computer system failures can be complex to figure out. They still don't know what went wrong. The Boeing 767 is not a `fly-by-wire' design in the narrow sense. It has hydromechanical controls and has given exemplary service for a decade and a half. Given its record, it's one of the safest planes flying. * What in general is the lesson from CIC (near) accidents? Pilots have lots of things to do at once. The lesson is: Keep it simple enough so that they retain a complete overview of everything, especially in critical phases of flight. And subject the computer systems to thorough design review. When a light bulb fails, you simply replace the light bulb. When complex computer systems fail, often it's because of a design oversight. That's just the nature of computers. Any bug was there from the beginning. Bugs are different from light-bulb failures. We have to handle them differently. * How many fly-by-wire aircraft (percentage-wise) are now landing and taking off from major European airports? What is the level of increase? I don't have the exact numbers, and I'm not sure if anybody does. But you could get a rough idea by going to, say, Schiphol, and looking at the aircraft types as they sit at the gate. The first true `fly-by-wire' aircraft to enter commercial service was the Airbus A320 in the late 1980's (15). Lots of people now fly the A320, as well as the A319 and A321, and its cousins the larger A330 and A340 airplanes. Boeing has just introduced the large new B777. When you fly one of these airplanes, you're being flown `by wire' in the narrow sense. But most aircraft in commercial service now have some critical computer systems whose complete failure could cause an emergency. <a href="http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/Vara-opinions.html">www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/...nions.html</a>

by **Iroquois** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:46 pm

My own pet theory was that the hijackers primary role was to install whatever hardware was needed to make the jets operable via remote control. Their flight training was intended to instill confidence. Plan B, though the hijackers may not have known it, would have been destruction of the plane. I also believe successful installation of the remote control hardware would be immediately followed by an event, such as the release of sleeping gas, to incapacitate the passangers, crew, and hijackers as even the hijackers may not have understood either the ultimate mission objective or even that the operation was anything other than a training exercise. With those parameters in mind, I thought this was interesting: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... The 757-200 and twin-aisle 767 were developed concurrently, so both share the same technological advancements in propulsion, aerodynamics, avionics and materials. This commonality reduces training and spares requirements when both are operated in the same fleet. Because of these features, many airline operators operate both 757 and 767 airplanes. ... Flight Deck The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments. A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload. The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer. ... <hr></blockquote> URL:<a href="http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200back.html">www.boeing.com/commercial...0back.html</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:38 pm

Didn't former German defense minister Andreas von Beulow say in a January 2002 Tagesspiegel interview that Lufthansa stripped out the flight control software from their purchased Boeings to prevent Americans from 'rescuing' their planes for them? The not-too-popular Australian Joe Vialls was one of the first to cite this information from von Beulow along with some alleged corroboration. I recently worked as a vendor at a closed military facility where an engineer was there to talk about a flight simulator guests could ooh and ahh over. I asked him about the installation of flight computers in the 1970s and the potential abuse on 9/11. He agreed it was possible. That's my anecdotal two cents-worth. <a href="http://www.911research.com/planes/analysis/homerun.html">www.911research.com/plane...merun.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement: "There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..." <hr></blockquote>

Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

Re: Software Problems for the 9/11 Planes

wheres my buddy.

Re: wheres my buddy.

Re: wheres my buddy.

Pismronunciation

Re: software?

Re: software?

Re: software?

Who is online