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

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And yet, despite all the computers and hackers out there, there has never once been a case of an aircraft being hacked successfully. Interesting that. Not even in testing when they deliberately tried to.

There were 1,050 of them built, with only 80 being built as straight freighters. Two 757s were built as Combi freighter/passenger aircraft. Starting in 2001 they started the 757-200SF passenger conversion into freighters as aircraft were retired from service.

Freighters fall under the same regulations as passenger flights, with only the rules for passengers being different. The other regulations are all the same for passenger or cargo flights.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would imagine if doable, it would be known, by solid theory or actual event.

But now that someone let the cat out of the bag about hacking through the FDR, it's on now. haha.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

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

If it was the A team, they'd improvise everything on the spot. Use a toothpick and some wire from ripping out a sky phone or something.

In a real life operation, you prepare everything in advance. Your team practices it over and over, until they get it perfect, and then they keep practicing.

The hack is perfected over many rounds of trial and error using a similar aircraft.

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.

That's 80's tech.

With 2001 level modern laptops, you can do all of that in software. You can emluate whole electrical systems.

You do'n't need a hundred separate devices. Just some adapters plugged into a USB.

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.

How much power do you think the equipment needs?

You're tilting at windmills.

Then all the splicing and equipment is going to go flawlessly with no testing.

Why wouldn't they test it on a similar plane first?

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.

Your questions underly your lack of understanding of how easy all of those things are to resolve with the right equipment.

It seems like magic to people who don't know how it works. But only them.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

I couldn't test it on an identical car, first?

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.

Does this car have two steering wheels? Does it have huge amounts of space inside? (Could always bring longer wires if you need more space to work in.)


Does the car have an autopilot?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And yet, despite all the computers and hackers out there, there has never once been a case of an aircraft being hacked successfully. Interesting that. Not even in testing when they deliberately tried to.

That is actually what we are here to debate.

But who has ever actually wanted to? When has it ever been easier to hack a plane than to simply use a bomb if you want it to go down? Or fly it yourself if you want to safely land it?

Hacking is useful in one, and only one, situation: if you want to fake a Kamikaze attack.

There were 1,050 of them built, with only 80 being built as straight freighters. Two 757s were built as Combi freighter/passenger aircraft. Starting in 2001 they started the 757-200SF passenger conversion into freighters as aircraft were retired from service.

Freighters fall under the same regulations as passenger flights, with only the rules for passengers being different. The other regulations are all the same for passenger or cargo flights.

quoting wiki:

The 757-200PF, the production cargo version of the 757-200, entered service with UPS Airlines in 1987.[61] Targeted at the overnight package delivery market,[61] the freighter can carry up to 15 ULD containers or pallets on its main deck, for a volume of up to 6,600 cubic feet (187 m3), while its two lower holds can carry up to 1,830 cubic feet (51.8 m3) of bulk cargo.[29] The maximum revenue payload capability is 87,700 pounds (39,800 kg) including container weight.[129] The 757-200PF is specified with a MTOW of 255,000 pounds (116,000 kg) for maximal range performance;[61][129] when fully loaded, the aircraft can fly up to 3,150 nautical miles (5,830 km).[129] Because the freighter does not carry any passengers, it can operate transatlantic flights free of ETOPS restrictions.[49] Power is provided by RB211-535E4B engines from Rolls-Royce, or PW2037 and PW2040 engines from Pratt & Whitney.[129]

Clearly the rules are not exactly the same. I think you're massively overestimating the amount of scrutiny involved.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.

The instruments themselves are analogue. You can read the instrument from itself. Who cares how guarded the line between it and the sensor is?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The instrument has nothing to do with the controls. So what if it's not guarded, it doesn't tie into the control system, or make the flight controls move. To move the controls you have to access something that ties to the control system. The airlines, manufacturers, and other organizations have tried hacking into the aircraft in flight, because that's part of the certification process as aircraft have become more and more computer controlled. Back in the days of the 757, it wasn't as important, because it was all analog and hydromechanical.

I'm not overestimating the level of scrutiny. Did you read what I posted, or did you just jump straight to "They don't require ETOPS certification"?

Freighters fall under the same regulations as passenger flights, with only the rules for passengers being different. The other regulations are all the same for passenger or cargo flights.

Thanks for pointing out what I said though. Both cargo and passenger aircraft fall under 14 CFR 121 regulations. The only difference between the two is that cargo flights don't require the passenger regulations, since the only passengers on board are the flight crew, or crew deadheading on the aircraft.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You know your just utterly clueless.

The point for the 757, there is no central DCS that controls all flight surfaces. And some of the controls that do, are just for trim and fine tuning. I am not sure they will control for full range of motion.

Start with were are you going to "hack" into the actual control signal derived from manual controls to the hydraulics in wiring with short runs, no slack, buried deep behind instrument clusters and in the air frame. I hope systems and wiring harden for at least turbulence. If not water egress and possible fire? And that is even if the hydraulic control blocks are driven by electrical solenoids, not manual levers.

How you are going to filter out the original control signals to the hacked electronics to prevent interfering and competing signals.

When you physically hack the wiring of a system online, how are you going to prevent shorts, breaker trips, blowing fuses, and damaging electrical controls. One short, and it's game over.


The power concerns are for how one would luge aboard and install an antenna, amplifier, receiver, and transmitter to establish communications of telemetry and control signals on a system closed and isolated to the jet. A system with limited access. A system that would need to broadcast telemetry at least sixty miles if the ground control station could handoff from antenna to antenna. What if the control station could not travel, or not handoff from antenna. You would need to transmit telemetry 300, 500, 600 miles?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The point is, there is no magic data plug to hook into on a 757 that will allow access to the major flight controls. There might not even be a central hub that recieves all sensor and flight data. It might be several difrent units throughout the air frame. And there might be redundant sensors and units that run off a voting scheme on what signal to select. And the only way to hack a sensor signal is to hack in between the sensor and receiving unit if. What if the receiving unit gets two or three sensor signals, and only transmits a calculated value to the flight controls?


Note: there is a good chance a particular control does not receive sensor data. It probably receives more than one calculated signal from many independent sources. That is standard for critical instrument reliability. Some process require up to four redundant pressure sensors all independent of each other. The system monitors, votes, and selects which signals to use. The system will go into different failure modes as each sensor communication is lost.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Then you neede a transmission and receiving station for the jet and controlling station that is utterly reliable. Even a second of dropped telemetry and control signal will confuse and cause the controls to reposition and compensate. A repeated drop or break in data will throw the system into swings and overcorrections.

Sorry if this has been posted before on this thread. Its the vidio of the Pentagon.



Seems to have been deleted now it was the full vidio

Without trying to reply to any posts specifically for a moment, I'll try and address the technical issues.

Lets look at this in an organized manner. Some parts of a 757 can be controlled purely by the autopilot. Those parts can be hacked directly by interfacing with the autopilot. I won't go into detail about how, because I'm not familiar with it other than to point out that it appears to be a fairly simple computing device. By which I mean simple when compared against a laptop from 2001. Any individual circuit can be removed and replaced with a near identical one.

In a purely electronic hack, the need for custom parts is silly. Electronics repair shops often have to order parts, because they are staffed with mere technicians. A fully trained Electronic Engineer would not need to order those parts unless it's some kind of oscillator (including devices for transmitting radio signals). They can fabricate their own. (Mechanical engineers usually can't fabricate mechanical parts from scratch, but electronic engineers can frequently do fabricate electronic parts from scratch.)





However the mechanical controls for the flight surfaces pose a problem for a hacker. Their options are basically:

A: Directly hack the servo assistance motors.

That requires access to those motors directly, since they are not controlled by any outside devices. The cables themselves control them.

B: Hack the controls in the pilot compartment.

This requires robotics. You would need to attach servo motors to the control sticks/steering wheel themselves. It's far from impossible, but also not easy. And you have to get the motors on board (which may not be as hard as you think, considering how lax airport security was prior to 9/11)

On the upside, servo motor robotics is the easiest kind to do and get right. Also you have the advantage that flight surfaces are altered only a few times in flight, and don't have to be moved rapidly.


Even during the dive, the moment by moment adjustments would likely be directed to the throttles of the engines. Not so much toward the flight surfaces. Those would be fixed for most of the dive. They would be adjusted when the circular maneuver starts, then when the plane comes out of the circling part, and stay more or less fixed from that moment until impact. Perhaps some slight adjustments to pitch.




How to get a remote control signal to the Hacked plane is easy. You don't bother to do so until the last couple of miles of the flight. The plane's own autopilot is sufficient to fly it to its destination.

You only need to remote control it for the crash itself.

Therefore, the remote control signal can come from a location on the ground near your target.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So these modifications that would take a full up maintenance facility two days minimum to do, using trained engineers, in a full up maintenance facility, took the untrained hijackers, what, an hour to do while in flight. Seriously?

These so called easy modifications are anything but. They require specialized software, that isn't just handed out, to access the FDC, specialized cables and plugs, removal of panels in the cockpit and under the floor... this isn't just a case of connecting a computer to the autopilot and making a couple of changes. You're talking major modifications that require access you can only get in a hangar.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So these modifications that would take a full up maintenance facility two days minimum to do, using trained engineers, in a full up maintenance facility, took the untrained hijackers, what, an hour to do while in flight. Seriously?

These so called easy modifications are anything but. They require specialized software, that isn't just handed out, to access the FDC, specialized cables and plugs, removal of panels in the cockpit and under the floor... this isn't just a case of connecting a computer to the autopilot and making a couple of changes. You're talking major modifications that require access you can only get in a hangar.

People watch to many movies and think anything can be hacked. Never mind the fact they purposefully prevent any hacking to aircraft and are tested to make sure. And no you couldn't just plug a laptop into a 757. Funny part if these guys could have done it they would be millionaires. Currently Boeing is attempting to make a fully automated plane no pilot required.

See here's the problem even with auto pilot on current planes require pilot input. Auto pilot set things like trim based off sterling and engine power. So the pilot actually still has to fly. BoeING is attempting to make am AI that can fly the plane. Not a simple task but apparently these guys could do it in an hour while in flight. Wow people can be stupid.

I'll never get why it's so difficult to accept that a suicidal maniac with a piloting background flew a plane into a building - it happened multiple times on the same day. And then come up with fantastic alternate theories that are vastly more complex requiring a team of hundreds or even thousands to accomplish in order to avoid the possibility that an enemy's ability to do harm locally was largely underestimated.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Funny, if you think you have a credible idea, that you don't list flight control surfaces and how you would hack them. I cited a site that lists the flight controls and listed the major flight controls way back in this thread. Here is that site again.

craigmiddleton.co.uk...

Please cite where you are going to physical hack into the system.

If and where you would install video for a visual aid for remote flight.

For the inflight hack,
How you would not short out the system for items that require direct connections to control wires.
How would you lug aboard an antenna, transmitter, receiver, video cameras, robotics past security? Are you talking about using video cameras too? And lugging aboard electrical motors and controls past security? As carryon? And don't forget the tools.

The hijackers took over flight 77 around 8:50. The jet hit before 9:40.
Who flew the jet while the hacking took place?

It takes an afternoon to install a car radio with new speakers, wires, and amp. Hijackers took over a jet, hacked computers and installed physical wiring, set up and calibrated robotics, a system to transmit telemetry, and a system to receive control signals in less than an hour?

And you never listed how the flight computers would handle possible resultant communications errors.

For preflight hacking.....

Thread: 9-11-any-evidence-for-remote-controlled-planes.
www.metabunk.org...

Post by: Keith Beachy

As a pilot I can refuse to fly a jet that is modified in anyway which is not in the manual. I see a new box in the electronics bay, we don't fly, end of story;

Post by: TWCobra

The 757/767 flight control system is not Fly-by-wire. It is a direct physical linkage from the control wheels to hydraulic actuators which move the flight controls. Therefore you have widened the conspiracy even further due to the requirement for fitment of an elaborate second system of servos and electromechanical linkages to all the major flight controls, and an isolation method for the primary controls. This system would need hydraulic power, so an isolation method of the three hydraulic systems would be required to use them, or some sort of diversion of output from some of the pumps installed.

All this on aircraft that are regularly maintained by mechanics who would presumably have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

Post by: jaydeehess

In addition, we have two examples of remote pilot control of a large aircraft, one in the 1980s and another in 2012 in which they both failed to land where, or in the attitude intended. Translating that to a remote pilot attempting to hit a building at four times the velocity of those two examples would seem to severely reduce the chances of a hit

And you still have not addressed where the control signal was transmitted from? An item that would dictate the equipment used to hack a 757 for remote control. One large antenna? Satellite? Ground signal handed from station to station? A tailing in flight command center? Controls probably set up in the format of a 757 cockpit.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So these modifications that would take a full up maintenance facility two days minimum to do, using trained engineers, in a full up maintenance facility, took the untrained hijackers, what, an hour to do while in flight. Seriously?

These so called easy modifications are anything but. They require specialized software, that isn't just handed out, to access the FDC, specialized cables and plugs, removal of panels in the cockpit and under the floor... this isn't just a case of connecting a computer to the autopilot and making a couple of changes. You're talking major modifications that require access you can only get in a hangar.

People watch to many movies and think anything can be hacked. Never mind the fact they purposefully prevent any hacking to aircraft and are tested to make sure. And no you couldn't just plug a laptop into a 757. Funny part if these guys could have done it they would be millionaires. Currently Boeing is attempting to make a fully automated plane no pilot required.

See here's the problem even with auto pilot on current planes require pilot input. Auto pilot set things like trim based off sterling and engine power. So the pilot actually still has to fly. BoeING is attempting to make am AI that can fly the plane. Not a simple task but apparently these guys could do it in an hour while in flight. Wow people can be stupid.

Awesome post

And setup the transmission and receiving equipment to broadcast telemetry and receive the control signal.

a reply to: Pilgrum

I'll never get why it's so difficult to accept that a suicidal maniac with a piloting background flew a plane into a building - it happened multiple times on the same day.

And it's happened several times before and after 911 too.
Egypt Air
Germanwings 9225
Japan Air 350
Mozambique Air 350
Silkair in 1997

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The more I think about, let's put it this way. I am sure there is a data connection on a 757. But it is probably like a data connection on a car. The 757 data connection only links and allows the reading of outputs that cannot be hacked to create inputs. In fact, the outputs are probably protected by diodes on the processor circuit board to prevent harmful current flow into the outputs.

I am not saying that the flight computers are not updated through an external data link like using a external computer to reprogram a car's computer to set the tire size parameters. But I cannot use a data link that only has specific access to the memory that holds the car's parameters and operating instructions to control cruise control. A link that has no access to process values.

The car's computer must see a specific input of voltage for the cruise control on pin and the car's computer must see a specific voltage on the cruise control set pin. It's called interlocks. In others words, the car's computer must see specific voltages on specific inputs that are generated externally from the computer system to set the cruise control. In this case, the manual operation of a on switch and a set switch to engage the cruise control.

Inputs produced manually from an actual device and not a program value.

You need to show what data link on a 757 would let you set course, and how a laptop would interact with the autopilot to achieve that. If that data link allows access to memory that is programmed by external sensor devices. Air speed for example. And you need to show how the hacked system for the 757 created specific control signals that are created from specific external devices. Inputs into the flight controls that cannot be programmed. An example is probably flight speed. The flight computer probably only sees raw flight speed from an external device, the flight computer probably has no internal command structure to force flight speed input to a specific value. I Imagine a jet has redundant flight speed sensors, votes on which signal to use, and a means to generate an alarm on a communications error. Specific inputs where the actual wiring to the flight computer must be hacked, and a suitable signal provided while filtering out the signal from the OEM device.

Another example would be the control signal from the yoke to what controls the hydraulics. And the return position input generated by mechanical position indicator that would create a deviation alarm if the flight control surface deviated from the calculated/desired position.

Then how are you capturing something like the flight speed data if the flight computer data link has no flight speed output, and transmitting the flight speed data of the jet to the remote control station. The you have altitude, pitch, angle, flight control positioning, throttle power and positioning.

Is it false to say the autopilot is set through a series of external interlocks, the course entered through external devices to the flight computer, and engaged with manual switches.

How would an external GPS unit talk to a laptop, so the laptop could relay the course through what data connection to access specifically what on the flight computers?

And it seems there are interlocks on a jet's flight computers that would prevent the flight computers from being flashed with new parameters while in flight.

a reply to: neutronflux

The data coming back from control surfaces etc to be displayed in the cockpit is via transducers which convert a physical position, pressure, temperature or attitude indication IE anything into an electrical signal which could be digital or analog. The major thing to remember about the transducers is they only function 1 way and it's impossible to affect the measured point mechanically by forcing a signal backwards into the transducer, all that's likely to happen in that case is the transducer's output electronics will be damaged.

To electrically control the 757 would require fitting linear actuators and servo motors along with a huge amount of wiring to every feature you want to be able to control which would be a vast exercise - probably way cheaper to get an Airbus which is 'fly-by-wire' already (still has safeguards against 'hacking' though).

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Without trying to reply to any posts specifically for a moment, I'll try and address the technical issues.

Lets look at this in an organized manner. Some parts of a 757 can be controlled purely by the autopilot. Those parts can be hacked directly by interfacing with the autopilot. I won't go into detail about how, because I'm not familiar with it other than to point out that it appears to be a fairly simple computing device. By which I mean simple when compared against a laptop from 2001. Any individual circuit can be removed and replaced with a near identical one.

In a purely electronic hack, the need for custom parts is silly. Electronics repair shops often have to order parts, because they are staffed with mere technicians. A fully trained Electronic Engineer would not need to order those parts unless it's some kind of oscillator (including devices for transmitting radio signals). They can fabricate their own. (Mechanical engineers usually can't fabricate mechanical parts from scratch, but electronic engineers can frequently do fabricate electronic parts from scratch.)





However the mechanical controls for the flight surfaces pose a problem for a hacker. Their options are basically:

A: Directly hack the servo assistance motors.

That requires access to those motors directly, since they are not controlled by any outside devices. The cables themselves control them.

B: Hack the controls in the pilot compartment.

This requires robotics. You would need to attach servo motors to the control sticks/steering wheel themselves. It's far from impossible, but also not easy. And you have to get the motors on board (which may not be as hard as you think, considering how lax airport security was prior to 9/11)

On the upside, servo motor robotics is the easiest kind to do and get right. Also you have the advantage that flight surfaces are altered only a few times in flight, and don't have to be moved rapidly.


Even during the dive, the moment by moment adjustments would likely be directed to the throttles of the engines. Not so much toward the flight surfaces. Those would be fixed for most of the dive. They would be adjusted when the circular maneuver starts, then when the plane comes out of the circling part, and stay more or less fixed from that moment until impact. Perhaps some slight adjustments to pitch.




How to get a remote control signal to the Hacked plane is easy. You don't bother to do so until the last couple of miles of the flight. The plane's own autopilot is sufficient to fly it to its destination.

You only need to remote control it for the crash itself.

Therefore, the remote control signal can come from a location on the ground near your target.

Today's aircraft communicate with satellites ALL THE TIME while they are flying. They do it by means of computers onboard, talking through the satellites. Therefore, they can be hacked.

Look into the ARINC protocols and the hardware.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Without trying to reply to any posts specifically for a moment, I'll try and address the technical issues.

Lets look at this in an organized manner. Some parts of a 757 can be controlled purely by the autopilot. Those parts can be hacked directly by interfacing with the autopilot. I won't go into detail about how, because I'm not familiar with it other than to point out that it appears to be a fairly simple computing device. By which I mean simple when compared against a laptop from 2001. Any individual circuit can be removed and replaced with a near identical one.

In a purely electronic hack, the need for custom parts is silly. Electronics repair shops often have to order parts, because they are staffed with mere technicians. A fully trained Electronic Engineer would not need to order those parts unless it's some kind of oscillator (including devices for transmitting radio signals). They can fabricate their own. (Mechanical engineers usually can't fabricate mechanical parts from scratch, but electronic engineers can frequently do fabricate electronic parts from scratch.)





However the mechanical controls for the flight surfaces pose a problem for a hacker. Their options are basically:

A: Directly hack the servo assistance motors.

That requires access to those motors directly, since they are not controlled by any outside devices. The cables themselves control them.

B: Hack the controls in the pilot compartment.

This requires robotics. You would need to attach servo motors to the control sticks/steering wheel themselves. It's far from impossible, but also not easy. And you have to get the motors on board (which may not be as hard as you think, considering how lax airport security was prior to 9/11)

On the upside, servo motor robotics is the easiest kind to do and get right. Also you have the advantage that flight surfaces are altered only a few times in flight, and don't have to be moved rapidly.


Even during the dive, the moment by moment adjustments would likely be directed to the throttles of the engines. Not so much toward the flight surfaces. Those would be fixed for most of the dive. They would be adjusted when the circular maneuver starts, then when the plane comes out of the circling part, and stay more or less fixed from that moment until impact. Perhaps some slight adjustments to pitch.




How to get a remote control signal to the Hacked plane is easy. You don't bother to do so until the last couple of miles of the flight. The plane's own autopilot is sufficient to fly it to its destination.

You only need to remote control it for the crash itself.

Therefore, the remote control signal can come from a location on the ground near your target.

Today's aircraft communicate with satellites ALL THE TIME while they are flying. They do it by means of computers onboard, talking through the satellites. Therefore, they can be hacked.

What? Through a satellite phone? A text messing service. And we are talking 2001!

I think this is the most ignorant comment you ever made.

What is In communication with what? How is it tied to the flight controls? Does the communications allow for a high enough data transfer rate? And how does the communications provide protocols and access flight computer data to change programming and process data.

I used to have a dish receiver for my TV. I can hack a satellite through my TV by just plugging a laptop into the HDMI cable?

Or like trying to control a car through the CB. Or controlling a car steering wheel through the car radio.