Were the Planes' GPS Systems "Spoofed" on 9/11?

Hackers are "jamming" and "spoofing" the GPS signals that navigation depends on - and have been for some time. The "hacking" has nothing to do with computers or viruses; it's mechanical...

Finally, TPTB are owning up to just how vulnerable GPS navigational systems really are.

Seems to me there's a very good possibility that someone "spoofed" the planes' navigational systems on 9/11, and "tricked" them into flying into the towers. ...Thought so at the time, but everyone insisted it was not possible. Still, it's just the kind of thing that gets covered up.

Sat-nav systems under increasing threat from 'jammers'

Technology that depends on satellite-navigation signals is increasingly threatened by attack from widely available equipment, experts say.

While "jamming" sat-nav equipment with noise signals is on the rise, more sophisticated methods allow hackers to program what receivers display.

At risk are not only sat-nav users, but also critical national infrastructure.

A UK meeting outlining the risks was held at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington on Tuesday.

"GPS gives us transportation, distribution industry, 'just-in-time' manufacturing, emergency services operations - even mining, road building and farming, all these and a zillion more," David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation, told the conference.

"But what few people outside this community recognise is the high-precision timing that GPS provides to keep our telephone networks, the internet, banking transactions and even our power grid online."

......Each satellite in a sat-nav constellation is putting out less power than a car headlight, ...
What that means, ...is that the signals can be easily swamped by equipment back on Earth.

This can be done unintentionally by, for example, pirate television stations, or with a purpose in mind.

Military systems have been doing this "jamming" - flooding an area with a signal at the GPS frequency - for years in a bid to frustrate enemy navigation systems.

But small jamming devices are increasingly available on the internet.

…What is more, receivers can be "spoofed" - not simply blinded by a strong, noisy signal, but fooled into thinking their location or the time is different because of fraudulent broadcast GPS signals.

"You can now buy a low-cost simulator and link it to Google Earth, put on a route and it will simulate that route to the timing that you specify," said Professor Last.

…the tools could be in the hands of criminals within a year or two.

One obvious reason to do the jamming or spoofing is that high-value cargo is tracked with GPS, as are armoured cars and many rental cars, so that confusing the tracking signal could spell a successful heist.

Sat-nav-based pricing for toll roads and road usage charges could be spoofed, and a company's employees may even use the devices to block the tracking devices imposed on company cars.

But jamming and spoofing, Professor Last said, were irresistible to the hacker type who did it for fun.

(Hope this hasn't already been covered. Sorry if it has.)









[edit on 23-2-2010 by soficrow]

The problem with this idea is that the commercial aircraft in 2001 didn't have GPS navigational aids. They relied on DME, INS etc type systems at that stage in history.

Very plausible.

How about......

October 2, 2001: Remote Controlled Passenger Airplane Flew Before 9/11, Despite Claims to the Contrary

A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]
It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 10/2/2001; DER SPIEGEL (HAMBURG), 10/28/2001]

There are claims that Raytheon employees were on every 911 flight or atleast some of them.

Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [INDEPENDENT TELEVISION NEWS, 4/24/2001]


However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that “the technology is pretty much there” but still untried. [OBSERVER, 9/16/2001]

An aviation-security expert at Jane’s Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs “in the realms of science fiction.” [FINANCIAL TIMES, 9/18/2001; ECONOMIST, 9/20/2001] Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research “new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote

If people say that the tech doesnt exist they are lying or are just plain ignorant.


Operation Aphrodite

The plan called for B-17 aircraft which had been taken out of operational service (various nicknames existed such as 'robot', 'baby', 'drone' or 'weary Willy')[2] to be loaded to capacity with explosives,

en.wikipedia.org...
It also claimed a life of a Kennedy.


[edit on 23-2-2010 by Shadow Herder]

The main problem with most people trying to wrap their minds around 9/11 is that they instantly assume conventional and unclassified aircraft, weapons or demolitions were used. It is no wonder the trusters seem to base their argument around outdated 1950's technology.

Most people who can think clearly are well aware that technology existed in 2001 which will not see the light of day for another twenty years. This is why the thermite argument is a waste of hot air. Without knowing the full extent of available resources to the Government, one will never be able to know which methods were used. Even with this major advantage, the executors of the operation still left huge holes in the official story.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

There's also the problem that the pilots would have been able to see the buildings, probably long enough before collision to turn away...

Even if it was an "inside job", those planes were intentionally and directly crashed into the buildings. Maybe even by remote control, apparently, but there was intention in whoever was directly controlling the planes.

Drones (or a remotely controlled aircraft) is plausible at least on the smaller jet scale. I have seen many F-4 Drones flown without a pilot. Their capabilities are obviously diminished, but basic flight controls remain. On a larger airliner, I would assume (deadly business on these boards I know) that a complete reconfiguration of equipment would have to be done in order to control a large airliner purely remotely.

Also, as someone above pointed out. GPS-Nav was not in effect and is hardly into effect today as a means to control traffic. The system will never control a plane and would only give positional information to Air Traffic Controllers enabling more highways in the skies and greater capacity.

I wouldn't think this would play into either the OS nor alternative theories on to what happened that day.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Very plausible.


...However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that “the technology is pretty much there” but still untried. [OBSERVER, 9/16/2001]

... If people say that the tech doesnt exist they are lying or are just plain ignorant.

Thanks Shadow Herder.

There's no doubt of course that we don't have accurate information about the technologies being used in our world - or our vulnerabilities, or that we've been breached, or how.

For example, it only recently came to light that we had an "electronic Pearl Harbor" in 2007 - but the previous administration didn't tell anyone because they didn't want to admit things were going badly.

In fact, as early as 2003, the Bush administration was being slammed for not dealing with cyber-vulnerabilities.

Cyber War: Sabotaging the System

"In 2007 we probably had our electronic Pearl Harbor. It was an espionage Pearl Harbor," Lewis said. "Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don't know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information."
…the previous administration didn't want to admit that they had been rolled in 2007. There's a disincentive to tell people, 'Hey, things are going badly.'

***

Cyber War Expert Slams Bush, Broadcaster Response to Internet Attacks.

NEW YORK -- NEW YORK, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- The broadcasting industry's first specialist in cyber war, nationally syndicated conservative radio columnist Andy Martin, will hold a New York news conference Thursday January 30th to charge the Bush administration's lack of response to Internet attacks could endanger the American economy and military preparedness.

SphinxMontreal
The main problem with most people trying to wrap their minds around 9/11 is that they instantly assume conventional and unclassified aircraft, weapons or demolitions were used. It is no wonder the trusters seem to base their argument around outdated 1950's technology.

Most people who can think clearly are well aware that technology existed in 2001 which will not see the light of day for another twenty years. This is why the thermite argument is a waste of hot air. Without knowing the full extent of available resources to the Government, one will never be able to know which methods were used. Even with this major advantage, the executors of the operation still left huge holes in the official story.

Exactly.

...and we had an administration that felt NO responsibility to inform the public fully, accurately, or even, truthfully.

Solasis
There's also the problem that the pilots would have been able to see the buildings, probably long enough before collision to turn away...

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there was a fog or blackout of some kind, likely there were other factors in play.

Solasis
...Even if it was an "inside job", those planes were intentionally and directly crashed into the buildings. Maybe even by remote control, apparently, but there was intention in whoever was directly controlling the planes.

Yep. That's my point.

From the OP BBC article:

...(GPS hacking) poses a particular danger to ships, which have systems that increasingly use sat-nav directly but also feed GPS signals into other equipment.

In the GLA trial, GPS in the jamming zone (red triangle) reported positions tens of km away from the true (eLoran) position

Some at the conference argued that with the growing maritime use of sat-nav, crews were less able to revert to classic methods of map-reading and "dead reckoning".
Alan Grant of the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA) carried out an experiment in 2008 to assess the degree to which ships would be affected by a jamming signal.

Using a relatively low-power jamming signal off the eastern English coast, he found that ships coming into the jamming area suddenly read locations anywhere from Ireland to Scandinavia - but with ranges dependent on the ship itself.

"The level of disruption depends on the ship - the make and model of the kit, how it's been integrated, and down to the strength of the jamming signal," he said.

But he suggested the more dangerous case is that of a jamming signal causing only small errors that would not so obviously give themselves up as false information.

ownbestenemy
...On a larger airliner, I would assume (deadly business on these boards I know) that a complete reconfiguration of equipment would have to be done in order to control a large airliner purely remotely.

Also, as someone above pointed out. GPS-Nav was not in effect and is hardly into effect today as a means to control traffic. The system will never control a plane and would only give positional information to Air Traffic Controllers enabling more highways in the skies and greater capacity.

I suspect we have been misinformed. And as the experiment with ships' nav systems revealed, "the more dangerous case is that of a jamming signal causing only small errors that would not so obviously give themselves up as false information."


...One of my main concerns here is that "national security" is being used as an excuse to regulate and control the Internet - when the real problem is NOT Internet hackers, but rather, vulnerable sat-nav systems.

[Save the Free Web]

To clarify more...

Modern ships traversing the worlds oceans rely heavily upon GPS/Sat systems to provide critical navigation positional data and probably ship direction correction. In the oceans, they have no radar, no VORs, and minimal radio contact. There is no ATC to help guide the ocean bearing vessels in safe paths.

In the skies, especially above the United States, an airliner is not controlled by GPS/Sat System. It can provide the pilot with positional data that will work with the many other technologies and avionics that are in modern day airplanes. It also could provide ATC with up-to-the-sec positional data on that airline. It will not however, be used to control the plane. Airliners do not use GPS to vector in flight paths. That just isn't how that technology works in airliners in relation to navigation.

So even if the GPS systems were hacked that day, and were sending erroneous information to them, it would do nothing but give ONE indication amongst MANY in regards to position.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thanks.

One question...

"the experiment with ships' nav systems revealed, "the more dangerous case is that of a jamming signal causing only small errors that would not so obviously give themselves up as false information." "

...Assuming that airliners really can't be controlled by GPS/Sat Systems, still, couldn't a hack conceivably disrupt things just enough to cause serious errors (as with ships)?

...There was a series of airplane accidents and problems running over about 10-15 years that never were explained properly - I'm thinking this might shed some light...

reply to post by ownbestenemy

...an airliner is not controlled by GPS/Sat System.

Correct.

ALL that GPS provides is more accurate positional data.

That is all....the autoflight/FMS technology worked adequately, prior to GPS, for many years, using basic INS/IRS for gross navigation....

Down, closer to airports, at normal initial and final approach airspeeds, even the 'RNAV' capabilities, whether based on VOR/DME calculated waypoints, or INS calculated, with VOR/VOR or VOR/DME or DME/DME updating (to correct drift errors) was sufficient to provide guidance for what are known as "non-precision" insturment approach procedures.

GPS updating, as used today in modern airliners, merely "updates" the already-installed devices, that calculate position using laser-ring gyros, and built in accelerometers. To enhance positional accuracy, in the computations made by the navigation computers. STILL, it isn't yet certified as accurate (YET) for most instrument 'precision" approaches....we still rely on the decades-old ILS, using radio technolgy, transmitted from the ground-based equipment.

I regret that an earlier, and SHORTER post of mine was deleted by a moderator....in that post I siad mostly the samme thing, just in a briefer way...

AND I WILL REPEAT, also....laypersons who attempt to understand all of these complexities, without having the knowledge and experience of pilots around the world, will continue to misunderstand....

I simply cannot impart my over three decades of practical experience, in a simple forum post, such as this --- it takes years of experience to comprehend all of the complexities and details.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

AND I WILL REPEAT, also....laypersons who attempt to understand all of these complexities, without having the knowledge and experience of pilots around the world, will continue to misunderstand....

I simply cannot impart my over three decades of practical experience, in a simple forum post, such as this --- it takes years of experience to comprehend all of the complexities and details.

Well. That says it, doesn't it?

No point discussing anything, or giving anyone any information outside their area of expertise because well, most people just do not have the ability to comprehend.

...You should run for President.

Or at the very least, write copy for the Damage Control Department.

reply to post by soficrow


Allow me, please, to clear something up for you, OP.

The airplanes, all four of them were hijacked by terrorists determined to carry out their misson of death and destruction.

The airplanes were NOT TAKEN OVER remotely!!!

That's what I think you are trying to allude to....it just does NOT work that way, in real life.

When I mentioned 'laypersons' I was suggesting that it is a "perception" of laypeople, when they think about modern commercial aviation --- and that "perception" is heavily influenced by Hollywood disaster movies, (all fictional) and a general lack of understanding of the details.

It stems from a complete misunderstanding of just WHAT (and what not) an AutoPilot is, what it can and CANNOT do, and how it's operated, programmed, anbd its limitations. Pilots understand these topics, sometimes some understand better than others, and THAT takes experience, and familiarity with the systems under discussion.

SO, let me explain, once again.....no airline pilot would be sitting, there, helpless, in the cockpit (as I think you may be suggesting) while the airplane "flies itself".

We ALWAYS have control, regardless of the fantasy that some people seem to imagine.

There are, off the cuff as I write this, at least three ways I can think of for a pilot to have COMPLETE control over the airplane,
regardless of any fantastical imagination of some sort of outside "remote control" 'take-over'.

Just does NOT happen that way, in any way, shape or form.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDING, because it keeps getting LOST in this discussion....

The four airplanes hijacked on 9/11 did NOT have GPS installed!!!!!

It is really that simple.











[edit on 24 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by soficrow

 

Allow me, please, to clear something up for you, OP.

...The airplanes were NOT TAKEN OVER remotely!!!

That's what I think you are trying to allude to....it just does NOT work that way, in real life.

Erm. No. I didn't say that, and didn't mean to imply any such thing. I am evaluating the potential of spoofing and jamming as a FACTOR that may have contributed to what happened on 9/11 as well as with other unexplained air accidents.

Here's what I said (asked):

soficrow
One question...

"the experiment with ships' nav systems revealed, "the more dangerous case is that of a jamming signal causing only small errors that would not so obviously give themselves up as false information." "

...Assuming that airliners really can't be controlled by GPS/Sat Systems, still, couldn't a hack conceivably disrupt things just enough to cause serious errors (as with ships)?

Really - I just don't believe in single cause and effect any more. Figure the world is just way too complicated and what with all the picky details and all, way too much can get FUBARed without anybody even trying.

weedwhacker
SO, let me explain, once again.....no airline pilot would be sitting, there, helpless, in the cockpit (as I think you may be suggesting) while the airplane "flies itself".

Never thought that. Nope. Wrong again. Wasn't suggesting that.

See above for info re: my line of enquiry.

BTW - I take back my recommendation that you write copy for the Department of Damage Control.

...You're waving way too many red flags. Good thing I'm not a bull. Or a hacker. You're pretty much daring some kid to jump in and prove you wrong. Not a good approach at all.




EDit to respond to your addition:

because it keeps getting LOST in this discussion....

The four airplanes hijacked on 9/11 did NOT have GPS installed!!!!!

It is really that simple.

OKAY!

I do NOT believe the government's official line. But I WILL believe you - because you're an experienced professional.

For sure.












[edit on 24-2-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by soficrow


No hi-jackers required for this tid-bit of remote-control ability.
Why did those Raytheon dudes vaporize???
People with out military service or experience are clueless about this stuff.
They are more into Sky King stuff.


Tom Flocco.com
tomflocco.com...


Witnesses link missile to small military jet parts found at Pentagon on 9/11
Date: Monday, May 23 @ 01:59:41 EDT
Topic: 9-11 Attacks

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.
The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.



The employees asked not to be identified for personal safety reasons and fear of job retaliation; but both told 2008 independent presidential candidate Karl Schwarz (left) "the Air Force brought in separate teams to do top-secret military work unrelated to commercial aviation at our airport, and we were told by our bosses not to discuss what we had seen with anyone."

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.

Schwarz, a former Republican from Arkansas now living in Georgia and running as an independent to clean up government corruption and crime told TomFlocco.com that he met with the employees for about an hour in February to discuss the issue.

The witnesses told Schwarz that each jet was placed in a hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior; and "we were under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what we saw."

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

reply to post by soficrow

I am evaluating the potential of spoofing and jamming as a FACTOR that may have contributed to what happened on 9/11 as well as with other unexplained air accidents.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You posted this in the "9/11 Conspiracies" forums, so how do other air accidents relate, again???

nevermind....

Barking up the wrong tree, you are, in the case of 9/11, and the airplanes involved.

There are OTHER ways, besides GPS (even IF it is installed, and it is NOT on all airliners, even today --- and certainly not on the four involved on 9/11) to determine and verify position. Pilots don't blindly rely on their nav systems (well, SOME do, and that HAS led to accidents in the past....because OF those accidents, more awareness of human factors help to re-design the interface and pilot (human) interaction with the systems.

But, equating a ship on the open ocean, pre-GPS technology, simply misses the point, and the fact, that ships have been navigating the ocieans for MANY centuries, without the aid of GPS.

It is insulting, in a way, to airline pilots, and to ocean-going ship's crews to.

GPS is a marvelous, and fairly recent, innovation and great tool to increase accuracy....BUT a good and aware pilot (or ship's crew) will continue to use OTHER means to double-check. However, Humans can make mistakes, and get lazy....which is a human factors problem.

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Oh...."Donny".....once again!

"Tom Flocco" is a joke, and you should have realized that by now.

To all readiing this, don't just take my word for it, look up this "Tom Flocco" on the Internet.

AND, there were NO A-3 parts found at the Pentagon, or at the WTC site in NYC!!!!

Let this one go, it is embarassing.

Here are my main points:

1. GPS systems are being hacked with signalling hardware that has nothing to do with the Internet - the hacks are called "jamming" and "spoofing."

2. GPS hacks are threatening navigation, and also critical national infrastructures.

3. Despite official denials, it's quite possible that the 9/11 planes did have GPS, and a hack was a FACTOR contributing to the chaos.

4. Despite the fact that GPS hacks are not "computer hacking" per se, and do not rely on the Internet, the threats from GPS hacks to navigation and critical national infrastructures are being twisted as a false reason to regulate and control the Internet.


Despite YOUR stated lack of concern, TPTB are extremely concerned about our reliance on GPS, and the threats of GPS hacking, including to navigation:

"GPS gives us transportation, distribution industry, 'just-in-time' manufacturing, emergency services operations - even mining, road building and farming, all these and a zillion more," David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation, told the conference.

"...GPS (also keeps) our telephone networks, the internet, banking transactions and even our power grid online."

Originally posted by weedwhacker
..
But, equating a ship on the open ocean, pre-GPS technology, simply misses the point, and the fact, that ships have been navigating the ocieans for MANY centuries, without the aid of GPS.

It is insulting, in a way, to airline pilots, and to ocean-going ship's crews to.
...
GPS is a marvelous, and fairly recent, innovation and great tool to increase accuracy....BUT a good and aware pilot (or ship's crew) will continue to use OTHER means to double-check. However, Humans can make mistakes, and get lazy....which is a human factors problem.

I did not equate "a ship on the open ocean, pre-GPS technology."

And "insulting" or not, the OP article reports on a conference attended by policy-makers, academics and industry figures who are under the impression that jamming and spoofing threaten navigation (as well as critical national infrastructure).

"Navigation is no longer about how to measure where you are accurately - that's easy. ...Now it's all about how to do so reliably, safely and robustly." - according to Professor David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation.

Please, contact Professor Last and the following agencies, at least, to explain that they have nothing to worry about, after all, in your professional opinion:

National Physical Laboratory in Teddington,
Digital Systems Knowledge Transfer Network
The Royal Institute of Navigation

reply to post by soficrow


It's "quite possible???? Really???? Disingenuous to make this claim, in the face of FACTS that exist, on record!!!!

3. Despite official denials, it's quite possible that the 9/11 planes did have GPS...

See?

innuendo. used disengenuously....

shame.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

Oh...."Donny".....once again!

"Tom Flocco" is a joke, and you should have realized that by now.

To all readiing this, don't just take my word for it, look up this "Tom Flocco" on the Internet.

AND, there were NO A-3 parts found at the Pentagon, or at the WTC site in NYC!!!!

Let this one go, it is embarassing.

Embarrassing to you I assume.
I don't remember if Sky King would be as unfair as you are when it comes to Tom and his view of reality,
Take each point in the article and destroy it if you can.
I could say things as easily as you, when you try to discredit Tom.
Who really knows that you ever flew anything bigger than a u-control with a .020 glow plug hobby craft.
You are the one and only member that has been silly enough to try to discredit this information.
Emphasis on TRY