What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

a reply to: neutronflux

Where was the amplifiers, receivers, and power supplies? Where did they tap into the jet's electrical supply? Did the antennas have fuses or circuit breakers? Nobody questioned the changes to the jet's electrical systems or breaker boxes? How was the additional equipment for signal conditioning, PLCs, control modules, and new prime movers for flight surfaces powered? Were they redundant? I wouldn't think a jet would have much room for add on equipment, control mechanisms, transmitters, receivers, controls for flight surfaces on board, or tap into the electrical systems?

And what new and sophisticated control system, or extensive upgrade, doesn't need a few day's to a week's worth of testing, fixing, and correcting? Then maybe even a month's worth of tweaking while online?

Yet a drone system was just slapped into flight 77 with no notice nor concern. Somehow was able to transmit all the needed telemetry to hit the pentagon, and worked perfectly with no testing? With no questions about the equipment being supplied, by whom, or why?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neutronflux

Quote were I said it was hard? But your false authority is showing. You have to order expensive parts from suppliers that have limited supplies and distribution. We are talking broadcasting and receiving equipment powerful enough to handle large amounts of data to control a large jet at distance.

If there was a conspiracy, they're probably the same people who helped Silverstein finance the acquisition of WTC 1 & 2. (Or do you not find it convenient that he completed the purchase only 2 months prior to the attack? And just enough time to insure them?)

Cost of components would not be an issue. You don't conspire to destroy a national landmark if you're not looking to make at least a few billion.

Cost of any parts would be perfect zero, absolute non-issue.

What data was received from the jet to get it on target with the pentagon? Video?

You really have to ask that question?

How do predator drones get data to attack installations in Afghanistan?

How was the controlling handled? One large master antenna? Station to station hand off? What frequencies were used?

It would be time consuming and expensive. Then the paper, money, hardware, and broadcasting trail.

Radar, air traffic controllers, stress to pull out of the dive, and eyewitness accounts means the jet swap is almost totally impossible.

Worst case, you could have another plane in the air nearby. Reagan airport is a popular destination.

There would be nothing suspicious about having another plane in the air, headed toward Reagan airport, that just so happens to have a coinciding flight path with the hijacked plane.

So the install would had to hack scores of components to control scores of flight surfaces, not interfere with continuous system communication monitoring, use already installed hydraulic system, allow the pilots to use the controls, and not be noticed by pilot and maintenance inspections. Especially the power supplies and antenna arrays for the receiving and broadcasting data. I think the pilots and maintenance would question the abnormal power draw on a jets closed electrical system. Abnormal amp draw? Engines working harder to supply the additional draw to power transmitters?

You wouldn't do it in the dark. The parts would be prepared using a real airplane.

You'd acquire a similar plane, and go up in the air again and again, testing your hack again and again on the similar plane until you were sure you had it right.

You're making it sound the hijackers are going to get a circuit board, and work out the details right then and there from scratch.

No. The parts they are to rip out of the console would be determined far in advance. The connecting devices would be preprepared for them by an expert. They would have practiced many times doing it, in real flight, on a real plane (except with a pilot present to rescue them if they get it wrong.)

To say it's simple to get the needed parts, get them to work with the existing controls / electrical systems / system language, not cause control and communication errors, installed not to be noticed by pilots/crew/maintenance, be able to pass system checks and inspections, hide the additional power drain and weight from additional broadcasting/receiving equipment, and hide broadcasting/receiving arrays large enough to allow remote control of a large commercial jet shows your petty much clueless. And that is if the OEM hydraulics can be used, and a special hydraulic system was not needed.

You're assuming a group of poor conspirators would can't afford to rent or purchase their own plane, to test everything on.

Again, the jet would have to have altered maintenance logs, been grounded for a week to the drone system could be installed, the equipment and electrical staff employed, and the expensive and limited supply of parts provided.

You watch too much A Team.

WTF?

In version A:

They modify the controls mid-flight. No maintenance logs. Etc.

So they're ripping out controls from the console. They've got devices they attach the wires to, which connect to a laptop (or a few networked laptops). The laptop(s) getting data directly from the console, and assumes control of the plane by that means.


Version B :

The auto-pilot is altered.

In this version, a group of legitimate engineers are hired. They're told this is a research and design project. They have a 747 black box, and they're being asked to figure out a way to control it via remote control by changing the fewest parts possible.

After this project is over, the engineers are sent home. (All R&D projects in private industry involved non-disclosure agreements, so they don't need to be killed or anything.)

The circuit board and/or software upgrade are handed off to a technician accomplice who gets a job with the airline where he is allowed to do maintenance on the appropriate part of the plane.

At a moment when he's supposed to be doing routine maintenance, but his supervisor isn't nearby, he makes the change to the black box.

No record. Nothing. He was supposed to inspecting something in that area of the plane. Nothing more. But he didn't do what he was told.

I should add that the test flights might be carried out in another country with looser regulations.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


he makes the change to the black box.

Taking control of a plane Via the Flight Data Recorder. That's a Brilliant Idea. I wonder why no one else has thought of that ?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

They'd have to be carried out somewhere the ICAO doesn't regulate then, because ICAO and FAA regulations are designed to go hand in hand.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There is no way they'd be "ripping controls out of the console" in flight. You're extremely limited in what you can do to an aircraft in flight. You don't have the access to most systems from inside the aircraft. Cockpit instruments display data from outside sources, such as the pitot tubes and engine sensors.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


he makes the change to the black box.

Taking control of a plane Via the Flight Data Recorder. That's a Brilliant Idea. I wonder why no one else has thought of that ?

Because it won't work?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

it not the A Team. You have watched too many Hollywood movies.

They do run system checks and use checklists for preflight inspections. Also visual inspections. Pilots, aircrew, maintenance, and ground crews.

You never addressed the real issues. Installing redundant systems. Signal containing and able to read data from the flight system. Able to get foreign components to communicate with Boeing proprietary control languages. Installing equipment to capture telemetry from the flight system, installing the equipment to transmit the data, then equipment to receive control signals, condition the signals. and translate the signal to the native controls.

How are you going to get to wiring and data cables probably harden against fires and turbulence buried behind instrument panels and deep in the fuselage. It's not like there is much slack in the wiring runs. Weight and economics.

Where are you going to get the power for all the equipment.

Are you going to splice into control wiring down stream of the control system. If you splice down stream of the control signal, how you going to filter out the control signal. How does the splice not interfere with system checks. Control system communications checks. And what about the controls that receive two separate inputs. From the pilot and from the computer? And then the dampening systems? Then the systems that have redundant controls for reliability?

How do you cut or tap into wiring without creating shorts that would fry an online control system/microprocessor. Do you shut down the flight control power to install the system?

How do you do all this splicing and ensure all controls pass visual inspection and system checks.

Then all the splicing and equipment is going to go flawlessly with no testing. And how do you get pass all the failsafes and inflight calibrations / adjustments by pilots discussed in this thread. It just takes one short, failed transmitter, improper reading to crash off target. I would think the control station would need video to see the actual flight path. Do you read the gauges by video, or tap into each one to transmit the telemetry?

You have ignored how your going to actuate the controls still manipulate by mechanical cables.

And you ignored how and what telemetry was going to be captured and broadcasted to the control station.

And you need the space to install all the items.

And how would you get all the wiring, tools, wiring connectors, antennas, amplifiers, transmission/ receiving equipment, and PLCs onboard. Items that probably look a lot like a bomb?

Your theories just underlines your total lack in understanding of control systems.

It's starting to look like the most doable possibility here is that the plane was manually flown into the building by a below average pilot who intended that exact outcome. It certainly doesn't have the degrees of complication and associated paper trails that the suggested alternative scenarios have.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You could shut up all the haters.....

Take one 2001 car unchanged.

Create your own remote control system for that car using 2001 electronics. Don't test it in anyway.

Pick a destination about 70 miles away using a highway.

See if you can install the remote control system while the car is going sixty miles an hour down the highway by the 35 mile mark.

Then have somebody remotely drive you the rest of the 70 mile journey.

Post the whole thing on YouTube. It's should be simple, it's just a car,


Oh, and use the automated controls as applicable by hacking into the electric throttles, breaks, and cruise control.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Do to you watching too many movies, and for liability reasons, do not attempt my implied scenario because it's dangerous and unsafe.

You do realize automated cars still crash?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

"If there was a conspiracy, they're probably the same people who helped Silverstein finance the acquisition of WTC 1 & 2. (Or do you not find it convenient that he completed the purchase only 2 months prior to the attack? And just enough time to insure them?)"

Hasn't this been beat to death on ATS? Silverstein did not purchase WTC 1 and 2. He was LEASING them from the Port Authority. His bankers made him get property damage/business interruption insurance.

And, for him to retain the rights to rebuild, he paid the PA, $120 million a year...even when there was no income coming in. So, he got less than 7 billion in insurance, he has paid about 1.5 billion in rent, rebuilding has cost in the neighborhood of 15 billion total. And, some geniuses think spending 16.5 billion after the insurance payout of 7 billion...is proof he MADE money?

a reply to: Pilgrum


That is a "doable possibility" only for a person completely ignorant of aerodynamics, pilot experience, and handling qualities of transport category aircraft, and very gullible to the lies of government agencies.

originally posted by: Salander


That is a "doable possibility" only for a person completely ignorant of aerodynamics, pilot experience, and handling qualities of transport category aircraft,

So when are you going to show us your aerodynamic wisdom ?

So far it's just been vague little statements with some aeronautical terms thrown in.

When are you going to give us some details ?

So when are you going to show us your aerodynamic wisdom ?

So far it's just been vague little statements with some aeronautical terms thrown in.

When are you going to give us some details ?

a reply to: waypastvne

Right after provides proof of nuclear explosions in the WTC towers.........

a reply to: waypastvne


It would make no difference to you.

You need to be told how to think by an authority figure associated with the government.

I've been in aviation all my adult life, but never for the airlines. That knowledge will not effect your belief system.

How about your aviation credentials? Should I ask about that? Is it relevant?

a reply to: Salander

When are you going to quote firerescue, and prove the items posted by the individual are erroneous.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
By Salander:
"Stick to fire trucks Chief. Your aviation talk is humorous, but not enlightening."

You got time for a personal attack? But not the time to quote and create a rational argument to why the individual is wrong?

You don't have the time to post a clear theory concerning the pentagon and create a rational and credible supporting argument.

Was it a bomb, explosive missile, missile used as a kinetic weapon, or a Douglas A-3?

Funny, my beliefs have nothing to do with authority figures. It has everything thing to do with the pseudoscience of the truth movement, the items they ignore, the quotes out of context, the facts they hide, and the right out lies that are prevalent in the truth movement.

Example of lies:

Hitting the pentagon was going to destroy all pentagon financial records? All the treasury records? All the bank records? All the vendor and contractor records? Destroy all the data on a network in a building the size of 24 football fields? The outside department audit records?

The pentagon was built like a fortress.

A four foot diameter stolen Russian missile from a sunken Russian sub caused a 90 foot wide entrance hole without exploding any of the pentagon interior on to the lawn?

Flight 77 should of instantly lost all forward momentum, and fell stright out of the air on to the lawn do to catastrophic failure.

Lies perpetuated by the ignorant.


I understand governments are not to be trusted, but also understand individuals and private parties can do great evil. It seems you are the one that cannot come to grips that not even the USA government can control foreign governments and their support for a culte of jihad. Worse yet, you enable those that exploit 9/11 for personal gain through books sales, coast to cost radio, speaking tours, and donations to conspiracy sites.

The signal issue is a non-issue. The plane could fly by normal, traditional autopilot until it entered DC airspace, and then be taken over by remote control only for the very last part.

So the remote control station could be located on the ground near the Pentagon.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The stick, also certainly doesn't connect directly to the wing control surfaces.

Dude, Boeing 757s and 767s are Monkey Motion not Fly By Wire.

Control cables run all the way out to the hydraulic actuators on the control surfaces.

I managed to track down the site you got that from. I wasn't aware the controls for the surfaces were direct like that.


www.911myths.com...


The trouble is this guy makes way to many assumptions. He (seemingly deliberately) ignores technological work arounds that do and did exist.


If nothing else, servo-motor robotics is the easiest kind of robotics. If you attached servo motors to the controls, you could relyably put the wing surfaces exactly where you wanted without error. The motors would be slow, but the surfaces are supposed to be adjusted slowly.

A servo motor robotic setup is a "radio shack" level project. By which I mean you can buy all the needed parts at Radio Shack for a couple hundred dollars.

Since the throttles are directly electronic, and that's what you need to be adjusting second by second, I don't see a problem.


We live in a day when everything and anything can be hacked. When the music industry loses millions a year to piracy because they can't design an electronic device to store the songs that a hacker can't hack the data from. Private hot rodders on shoe string budgets use laptops to hack into the onboard computer of their car's engine.

If someone tells you something can't be hacked, and you believe them, then it is because you have chosen to suspend disbelief.

It would be great if we did live in such a world. But we don't live in a world that bears any resemblance to that world whatsoever.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just rip a Guage out? You need to get a converter to take the signal ment for the guage, provide a buffer so a short in the signal to the guage would not short out the entire control system. Maybe an amplifier if the gauge signal is to weak? What if the gauge signal is too powerful? You probably would want redundant systems so one faulty signal doesn't end the mission short. So you have the gauge replaced and a redundant component in place, the signals buffered, properly conditioned, and now what? Hook the signal up to exactly where and what? On a language specific, proprietary closed control system? Using what as a prime mover for the flight controls?

Try and understand that the 757 line was a big line. Over 1000 produced. Many not used for commercial flights, but rather transport. Some not subject to the same rigorous a regulation (since they weren't for transporting people.) But how much you want to bet their control console had the same specs? (Redesigning stuff like that for each model would be an extra expense. Cheaper to just use the same design again and again for all models.)

The hack wouldn't be devised right then and there in the sky.

The hacker would be given access to a transport 757, possibly in a foreign country like Egypt, or Chile, or somewhere further off the grid than that.

They would figure out it out by trial and error over months.

The hijackers would have the finished project. And they would have practiced the takeover 100 times or more on the test plane.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

"If there was a conspiracy, they're probably the same people who helped Silverstein finance the acquisition of WTC 1 & 2. (Or do you not find it convenient that he completed the purchase only 2 months prior to the attack? And just enough time to insure them?)"

Hasn't this been beat to death on ATS? Silverstein did not purchase WTC 1 and 2. He was LEASING them from the Port Authority. His bankers made him get property damage/business interruption insurance.

And, for him to retain the rights to rebuild, he paid the PA, $120 million a year...even when there was no income coming in. So, he got less than 7 billion in insurance, he has paid about 1.5 billion in rent, rebuilding has cost in the neighborhood of 15 billion total. And, some geniuses think spending 16.5 billion after the insurance payout of 7 billion...is proof he MADE money?

Yes. I know it was a lease not a buy. But it has 100 year lease.

His insurance policy had a loophole where certain insurers could, in theory, be required to pay out twice the amount if two events happened. He later went to court to argue that two events had happened and lost.

But unless you're telling me he had a crystal ball, and knew he was going to lose, it makes no difference to the discussion

If a bank robber robs a bank, but accidentally drops the money bag on the way out, that doesn't mean the crime wasn't motivated by money.