Phone Calls and Home Run

Not sure if this has been discussed here before, but here area a couple of intriguing bits of info on fabricated/strange phone calls, and the remote control system referred to as "Home Run".

Mother of All Lies - Phone Calls and 9/11

Home Run System

Initial thoughts on tis are that it is is certainly interesting, and as part of the wider 9/11 time-line investigations, worthy for further research. The Home Run system seems plausible as a technology, but its supposed method of implementation is highly unlikely, IMHO. The data rates involved would be too great.

I disagree with the technical limitations on sat phone usage; the speed of the plane is nothing compared to the speed of light radio waves. High g maneuvers or not, this would not upset the link, nor would the low altitudes as it is a line-of-sight technology. I do agree however that cellphone coverage would be patchy at best.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

First: Joe Vialls as a source: He's an anti-Semitic/anti-zionist guy with a lot of kooky theories and a few interesting ones. He's also dead FYI (mid-2005)
Second: He believes a 757 hit the Pentagon so I have a tad bit o respect for his ideas on 9/11
Third: Home Run is not verified anywhere else so far as I know. It remains possible but only put forth by Vialls.
Fourth: except Herr Von Buelow in germany, who cites as a source: Joe Vialls.
I can't rule it out, nor use it for evidence. Wrote on it here:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com... run.html

Also the raytheon thing is too obvious in its timing, a 727 proving flyable on Aug 23. But both illustrate RC for airliners is possible, exact method/system however remains a mystery... IF such tech was used at all.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Initial thoughts on tis are that it is is certainly interesting, and as part of the wider 9/11 time-line investigations, worthy for further research. The Home Run system seems plausible as a technology, but its supposed method of implementation is highly unlikely, IMHO. The data rates involved would be too great.

I disagree with the technical limitations on sat phone usage; the speed of the plane is nothing compared to the speed of light radio waves. High g maneuvers or not, this would not upset the link, nor would the low altitudes as it is a line-of-sight technology. I do agree however that cellphone coverage would be patchy at best.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

You also have insights I don't, and they appear reaonable. Good thots. So cell calls should not be impossible, just tricky?

Here's another RC thot: RC, no hijackers, and Fake calls on 11, 175, 77. Two calls each. They hit their targets. Flight 93 is a real hijack, learned of and boosted with three passenger-filled drones. May have been a trad. hijacking, with the landing and ransoming, or suicide with the hitting of bldgs. Real hijackers, real calls, ten of them, giving the illusion of reality to the hijacking on the other flights. Shot down to prevent terrorists from getting their way. Only US military allowed to attack buildings...

Maybe?

At low altitude, and assuming a clear line of sight between you and the base station (not to be confused with line of sight for sat comms - I'll get to that in a minute), it might be possible, but once you get a couple of thousand feet in the air, the coverage becomes patchy, because the transmitters are aimed at the ground where the people are. Transmissions into space is wasted energy, so they are directed aerials (hence why coverage is patchy at best). I'd say the odds at low altitude (< 2,000ft) of getting a signal are 2:1 against. As you get higher, I wouldn't even consider trying, because the chances are you'd lose the signal, and thus the call anyway.

Satellite comms are line of sight due to the frequency and power of the transmissions. As they are generally low-power, they can't penetrate things like buildings, and even trees are sufficient to break a link.

The satellite aerials are mounted on top of the fuselage looking straight up at the sky to offer maximum coverage, thus if you assume you are a spy satellite looking down, if you can see the roof of the aircraft (and thus the aerial), you can get a signal. It is why aircraft have sat phones in the first place.

Regarding Home Run and why the method cited is highly unlikely to actually be used in the way described is because the transponder ONLY sends information about itself. It sends the transponder code, and the aircrafts altitude off the Captains encoding altimeter (Mode C). Mode S transponders include additional information (position, speed and heading) for use by the TCAS system (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) fitted to all commercial airliners. The TCAS systems on the aircraft have a receiver (the transponder) and it takes the data from other surrounding aircraft, and builds a picture of the local traffic environment which is drawn either on a digital VS indicator that supports TCAS, or on the ND (nav display, or moving map as used by the pilots to navigate on aircraft like the B757). Through the transponder system, the TCAS system can send/receive data and the systems can actually determine who needs to do what to avoid a mid-air, if it deems it necessary. TCAS is beyond the scope of this discussion, but apart from this, the transponder doesn't do anything else.

The data sent out by the transponder (altitude and transponder code) are picked up by secondary RADAR, and this is displayed in the data tag in ATC. The RADAR system sweeps the sky at a rate of once every 6 seconds. Every time the RADAR signal is picked up by the aircraft, the IDENT light blinks, as the transponder is interrogated by the system as it sweeps. It is a visual indication to the crew that the transponder is sending/receiving data.

If this same system was to be used to remote control aircraft, the bandwidth would need increasing drastically, and the transponder itself would have a lot of other things to do. I just can't see it doing this for one second.

What I could see happening is a satellite receive being put on the aircraft, so like the GlobalHawk, it can be controlled via satellite. You'd have the high speed, high-bandwidth link you'd require for C&C, together with a reliable signal that wouldn't break down due to the first mountain you pass.

As for integrating the system into the FCC, the aircraft would need to be fly-by-wire to be able to break the pilots out of the loop completely, as is suggested. The only aircraft I'm aware of with full digital flight control systems are the Airbus A32x, A330 and A340, and Boeing 777.

Due to the way non-DFCS systems are configured, any movement in the flight controls would feedback to the control column on the flight deck. There is no flight computer between the pilot and the control surface, just a hydraulic actuator. The Airbus A32x, A330 and A340, and Boeing 777 are the only aircraft (AFAIK) with digital FBW systems (that is, it is a wire of digital signals between the pilot and the flight controls, not cables to hydraulic actuators). These are the only aircraft where I could see such a system working as described.

The B720 that was used for the fuel testing by NASA; I don't know how this was done. I'd be interested in finding out more about that. I would suggest that the technology would be limiting on regular commercial aircraft due to the weight of the equipment. Everyone would know of its existance.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 18-3-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Well, ummm, I'll just take your word for most of that.

Good li'l thread