 |
There are currently, 37 guest(s)
and member(s) that are online.
You are an
unregistered user. You can register for free by
clicking here
|
|
| | | |
|
 |
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits
Submitted by:
Anonymous "
by Jim Heikkila Saturday August 17, 2002
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.
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 were 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. "
| | |
|
|
|
Don't have an
account yet? You can create
one here. As a registered user you will be
able to access exclusive content, post comments
or submit articles with your name, and
more. |
|
| | | |
Average Score: 3.07 Votes:
265

|
|
| | | |
|
| "Login" | Login/Create an Account
| 32 comments |
|
|
| The comments are owned by the poster.
We aren't responsible for their
content. | | |
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
stevent0314 on Monday, August 19 @ 17:08:33 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http://www.4satin.com/ |
"Expert Comment"??:. Your cell phone has a max
transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually
the norm
Actually the norm is 0.6 of a watt. The
old "bag phones" from about 4 years ago-1997 era had 3
watts of power. This is the most basic of fact on the
phones that our so-called expert got wrong. As far as
the rest of the techno gobbly gook, if he can't get a
basic fact right that throws the rest of the analysis in
doubt. We must really be careful about the claims we
make because we only contribute to disinformation when
we make claims without getting their facts right. By the
way, my qualifications? I am a manager with the 3rd
largest Electronics Retailer in the USA. You know who we
are. |
[ No Comments Allowed
for Anonymous, please register
]
5 watts huh? (Score: 1) by Xenon on Monday, August
19 @ 17:52:12 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
sorry pal, i've been working in the cell phone
industry for YEARS, and your info is outdated at best
and plain old ignorant at worst.
here, let me
decimate this paragraph, and subsequently your entire
argument:
"When you make a cell phone call, the
first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs
to contact a transponder."
i'll let you slide
with this one. transponder is an old black and white
sci-fi term, not an industry term.
"Your cell
phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three
watts is actually the norm."
you don't have a
pacemaker or anything, right? that 5 watt analog will
fry an egg, old man. today's digitals use less than a
watt.
"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."
wrong again. a cell tower's range is between 5
and 20 miles, depending on terrain, weather, etc. if
you leave the range of one tower, the next tower will
pick you up, and you won't ever know it. hell, they can
pass a call from an analog roaming call to a digital
signal, and you can't tell. and your phone can go
through the steps you listed in about 4 seconds.
"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."
from power up this takes about 6-10
seconds. and the towers can pass you off so you never
lose a connection.
"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."
i bet you get funny looks when you
have to turn the crank on that monster bagphone of yours
to "wind up the batteries"....
"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."
but... but... you're wrong.
|
[ No Comments
Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
Ouka on Monday, August 19 @ 18:08:55 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
Your data is out of data, modern cell phones do not
take 45 seconds to establish a connection with a tower
upon powerup in a roaming area. Try it yourself. It
takes under 10 seconds (and that is being generous)
unless you are on the extreme range and are barely
getting any signal.
I'm in a roaming area now.
My cell phone is off. Let's turn it on and see, shall
we?
Searching.. Searching.. Connected. Voicmail
notification. elapsed time: 5.7 seconds. And I'm in a
research facility with metal between the walls (read low
signal reception). Probably would have been faster if I
was sanding outside but it would have been hard to drag
my computer stopwatch out there.
Given the
heavily populated areas which the planes were flying
over, I would assume there would be at least a couple
towers and/or relays that the phones could hook up to.
They also probably had direct line-of-sight working for
them, and the lack of anything but the plane's hull
blocking direct contact.
Furthermore, a visit to
Boeing's home page, as you suggested, did not confirm
your claims, Perhaps if you posted a URL?
I have
one for you:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/fo/fo01/story.html
In which it clearly states that "At bank angles
greater than 67 degrees, level flight cannot be
maintained within flight manual limits for a 2.5 g load
factor" Furthermore, there is a link in that article
showing Boeing passenger planes rated up to about 3g's
of force for SAFE emergency recovery maneuvers. However,
the planes in question were neither flying level, nor
were they intended to survive the extreme banking the
pilots were subjecting them to. Therefore one could
conclude that a pilot could force the plane into a
relatively high-g turn if he wasn't expecting to stay
within safe operating limits.
I suggest you do a
little more research before trying to spread your
anti-government messages (that was your intent, right?
Without saying it, you are basically saying the entire
9/11 ordeal is a government scheme/coverup -- who else
could manufacture cell phone calls, who else could "take
control" of a passenger-filled 757 and fly it into a
building?)
Come back to the real world. I am. I
have that voicemail to answer =P
|
[ No Comments
Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
Saint on Monday, August 19 @ 18:30:30 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
What this stated in that article is incorrect
regarding the 757's and 767's. The 757 and 767, as used
in the hijackings, aren't fly-by-wire aircraft, they're
flight control systems are hydraulic, not computerised,
all 757's and 767's have are onboard computerised
warning systems to suggest actions to the pilot, a voice
saying "PULL UP! PULL UP!" and alarms when diving are
too low for example. I'd ask people to look into the
Boeing 757 that crashed into a mountain ridge while
trying to land at Cali, Colombia, in 1995, the 757's
ground-warning system told the pilot to pull up, as he
did, but the pilot did not retract the speed brakes as
they climbed. The only Boeing that is fly-by-wire with
build in computerised pilot assistance/override is the
777. On the 777 though the pilot has the ultimate say,
pilots in general don't like being flown by computers,
they can override the onboard computers and their
built-in soft limits i.e. maximum g, pitch, roll etc on
the 777. The only airliners that have flight control
computers that the pilot can't override are Airbus
A320's and newer Airbus models - the most controversial
airliners going among
pilots. |
[ No Comments Allowed
for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
jester on Monday, August 19 @ 19:07:17 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http:// |
G'day,
I too read a similar article
questioning whether or not a phonecall could be made
whilst in transit........so I tried it, quiet a few
times and guess what......not once did my Handset do a
location update. All testing occured in various airports
and in various countries. Not one single time did my
Handset do a Location Update. Only on Landing did I
manage to do an update, as the aircraft slowed. On
Takeof.....it would quickly lose all signal and go to
search mode. It's dangerous to do this on takeoff and
landing so I dont advise but I wanted to know
conclusively. I used a Nokia 8250 GSM handset for all
tests. So how could they have made calls from their Cell
phones......
It's another part of the Jigsaw
that adds weight to " America Knew " on Sept 11.......
|
[ No Comments Allowed
for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
Xray on Tuesday, August 20 @ 07:49:17 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
He's a liar. 33Q10 is not NSA, it is Army. The "10"
designates he is anywhere from an E-1 (buck private) to
E-4 (specialist). He is a nothing with 4 years or less
time in service. The 33Q MOS is a microwave
communications field engineer. They don;t even work on
the Army's version of the cellular phone system (I did).
Cell phones will work fine from a plane.
|
[ No Comments Allowed
for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
mac on Tuesday, August 20 @ 13:18:25 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
The CVR (cockpit voice recorder) can be defeated in
a number of ways. Tape on the microphone, which is
directly above the pilot's head, or even removal of the
module, which only requires a flat blade screwdriver, at
the time available from any swiss army knife. The
circuit breaker for it is also inside the flight deck,
aft and overhead of the pilot's head, also directly
overhead for anyone entering the flight deck. Removing
the module will allow the CVR to run, but blank, since
there is no microphone. This anonymous loser is full of
it. It doesn't need to be repeated that the 757/767
cannot be flown by remote control. The crew always has
control of the airplane, regardless of the warnings
piped in from below or what any computer thinks. Crews
of Airbus airplanes, on the other hand, more or less
"seek permission" from the flight computers for any
action. This is a basic difference in philosophy between
the two manufacturers. A Boeing airplane, just like
any automobile, can be operated beyond the design
limits. It was meant to be that way. Boeing trusts the
crew to be able to make the decisions that they feel
necessary to do to ensure the survival of the
passengers. The warnings are just that, warnings. They
won't stop the crew, and once you acknowledge the
warning, they stop. If my mother in law nags me from the
back seat, she still has no control over my hands and
throttle foot. As someone who is very intimate with
the 767 from building them for a number of years, it hit
me personally that the fantastic machines that I myself
built were used for these nefarious means.
|
[ No Comments Allowed for
Anonymous, please register
]
Comments on this article sound like
spook talk (Score: 1) by
keepitreal on Wednesday, August 21 @ 06:56:52 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
One of the comments on this article was that the
author was in the Army, not the NSA. Anyone familiar
with the NSA (National Security Agency) knows that it's
made up of forces from all branches of the armed
services, the FBI, and the CIA. It's basically "the
worldwide eavesdropping agency", so its employees know
more about everything than they'll ever admit to you.
People with exceptional capabilities from the army are
often hired by the NSA and trained there, while keeping
original military rank. The NSA is supposedly a secret
organization that employs over 100,000 people, all
experts or highly trained in communications, computers,
satellites, electronics, crytography, and the like.
I wouldn't dismiss this article, as most
"fakers" wouldn't know what the NSA or NORAD were, much
less what activities they're responsible for. The NORAD
issue is an interesting one that needs more research
& consideration.
So far I haven't seen
anyone with Boeing credentials refute this article, and
even if Boeing denied it, I wouldn't necessarily believe
the denial. If Operation 911 was indeed executed by the
government, and all signs seem to indicate that it was,
the few planes in question easily could have been fitted
with Global Hawk Technology for this purpose. It's also
possible that Boeing has fitted many planes with
technology not known to the pilots or general public,
possibly classified systems which, as the author claims,
can only be accessed and controlled by NORAD.
On
the issue of making cell phone calls from the air in
rural areas, at least one person commenting here was
honest enough to admit that he tried it, and it didn't
work. I have personally traveled through Central and
Western Pennsylvania in the past year, and had problems
making cell phone calls from the ground in that
low-density Appalachian terrain. I'll have to experiment
from the air when I have the chance, as I'd encourage
others to do before making wrong assumptions.
|
[ No Comments Allowed for
Anonymous, please register
]
Re: American Drones (Score: 1) by gostryter2 on Wednesday,
August 21 @ 07:02:04 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http://www.infowars.com/ |
Great news report. Targeting gov't corruption is as
easy as shooting fish on the tip of an iceburg in a
barrel with a bottomless pit.
As a former nuke
weapons loader on supersonic "robotic" F111 swing-wing
bombers in "US"AF (AKA New World Order's AF), and as
a private pilot myself, I've seen a few strange things
that made me instantly realize the Pentagon perpetrated
"treason" as the "airliners" smashed into buildings
on 911. Obviously, to anyone who does not live in the
Star Trek Zone - only the "US" millitary could
successfully coordinate such a scheme. It boggles the
mind to even attempt to imagine the logistics
required. It also required cooperation from all
agencies of US government, the global media empires, the
airlines and Wall Street's global bankers.
A
typical US military air strike, such as the 1-hour
bombing by USAF and US Navy on Libya in Operation EL
DORADO CANYON in 1987 requires 10,000s of highly skilled
professionals working in synchronicity. The individuals
do not even "need to know" what the heck is going
on, as they are always told it is "just another War
Game". Thus I was busy loading nukes when our jets
returned from their sneak attack Libya, where they
bombed President Qaddafi's tent and killed his daughter
(after "'US' Special Forces" rescued him from harm's
way), and accidentally killed 40 other innocent
bystanders as they slept in their homes in downtown
Tripoli. One F111 was shot down because Bush Sr (the
acting president) ordered the jets to run up the score
even after the element of surprise was lost. Those
pilots also used "GO PILLS" just like the pilots in
Afganistan who slaughtered the wedding party, and the
"'US' Special Forces" troops who returned from killing
women and children in Afganistan and then
slaughtered their own families at Fort Hood[lum]. I
distinctly recall eating my breakfast of scrambled eggs
as BBC News broadcast live video from Tripoli of a
civilian woman's brains splattered on the sidewalk. (I
don't eat scrambled eggs anymore.)
The F111 was
designed in early 1960s for "Vietnam" Civil War and is
still used by some air forces such as Australia. It was
the first aircraft to use "Terrain Following Radar"
system that allowed full autopilot flight with the
bomber flying as low as 100 feet off the deck, like a
crusise missle. The pilots were usually scared the death
(and/or insane), I suppose, sitting in their tiny
cockpit strapped to a rocket-powered escape capsule/pod,
banging their knees and heads and watching the control
sticks move around like keys on a player piano (I
presume "insane" is accurate - I've sat watching "home
videos" from a Vietnam pilot as he proudly showed off
the tracers zipping by his cockpit as people tried to
murder him as he mass-murdered people (as my house was
nearly burned town in a Towering Inferno "accidentally"
caused by a Skull-&-Bones-Bohemian-Grove mayor's
billion-dollar Arab contractor, but's that's another
story)). The autopilot had 3 settings: Hard, Medium,
Soft, for the abruptness of the ride over hills and
valleys. This was a Mach 2+ aircraft with speed limited
by the high temperature generated on its ally skin. It
routinely pulled high-G turns that looked like it
would rip the wings off - yes pigs CAN fly. Amazingly
(from a common-sense point of view), Pentagon retired
F111s in early 1990s, while retaining primative Boeing
707s (KC135 tankers and AWACS) that look like the Wright
Bros Flyer when viewed up close.
The point being
that large, Robotic, jetplanes are commonly and
routinely controlled by Pentagon's mad
scientists/engineers/joint-chiefs. Look at Pentagon's
latest Global Hawk, the Boeing-737-sized robotic recon
drone that doesn't even have a cockpit for a human
pilot. Or Predator recon drone that is also used in
bombing runs in Afganistan War. Or US Navy's Joe Kennedy
2's death-by-explosion as he tried to bail out of the
B24 Liberator drone as it was on its way to bomb a
NAZI rocket launching bunker. Or
Pentagon/B
Read
the rest of this
comment... |
[ No
Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: American Drones (bad line
breaks) (Score: 1) by
gostryter2 on Wednesday, August 21 @ 07:10:59 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http://www.infowars.com/ |
Great news report. Targeting gov't corruption is as
easy as shooting fish on the tip of an iceburg in a
barrel with a bottomless pit.
As a former nuke
weapons loader on supersonic "robotic" F111 swing-wing
bombers in "US"AF (AKA New World Order's AF), and as a
private pilot myself, I've seen a few strange things
that made me instantly realize the Pentagon perpetrated
"treason" as the "airliners" smashed into buildings on
911. Obviously, to anyone who does not live in the Star
Trek Zone - only the "US" millitary could successfully
coordinate such a scheme. It boggles the mind to even
attempt to imagine the logistics required. It also
required cooperation from all agencies of US government,
the global media empires, the airlines and Wall Street's
global bankers.
A typical US military air
strike, such as the 1-hour bombing by USAF and US Navy
on Libya in Operation EL DORADO CANYON in 1987 requires
10,000s of highly skilled professionals working in
synchronicity. The individuals do not even "need to
know" what the heck is going on, as they are always told
it is "just another War Game". Thus I was busy loading
nukes when our jets returned from their sneak attack
Libya, where they bombed President Qaddafi's tent and
killed his daughter (after "'US' Special Forces" rescued
him from harm's way), and accidentally killed 40 other
innocent bystanders as they slept in their homes in
downtown Tripoli. One F111 was shot down because Bush Sr
(the acting president) ordered the jets to run up the
score even after the element of surprise was lost. Those
pilots also used "GO PILLS" just like the pilots in
Afganistan who slaughtered the wedding party, and the
"'US' Special Forces" troops who returned from killing
women and children in Afganistan and then
slaughtered their own families at Fort Hood[lum]. I
distinctly recall eating my breakfast of scrambled eggs
as BBC News broadcast live video from Tripoli of a
civilian woman's brains splattered on the sidewalk. (I
don't eat scrambled eggs anymore.)
The F111 was
designed in early 1960s for "Vietnam" Civil War and is
still used by some air forces such as Australia. It was
the first aircraft to use "Terrain Following Radar"
system that allowed full autopilot flight with the
bomber flying as low as 100 feet off the deck, like a
crusise missle. The pilots were usually scared the death
(and/or insane), I suppose, sitting in their tiny
cockpit strapped to a rocket-powered escape capsule/pod,
banging their knees and heads and watching the control
sticks move around like keys on a player piano (I
presume "insane" is accurate - I've sat watching "home
videos" from a Vietnam pilot as he proudly showed off
the tracers zipping by his cockpit as people tried to
murder him as he mass-murdered people (as my house was
nearly burned town in a Towering Inferno "accidentally"
caused by a Skull-&-Bones-Bohemian-Grove mayor's
billion-dollar Arab contractor, but's that's another
story)). The autopilot had 3 settings: Hard, Medium,
Soft, for the abruptness of the ride over hills and
valleys. This was a Mach 2+ aircraft with speed limited
by the high temperature generated on its ally skin. It
routinely pulled high-G turns that looked like it
would rip the wings off - yes pigs CAN fly. Amazingly
(from a common-sense point of view), Pentagon retired
F111s in early 1990s, while retaining primative Boeing
707s (KC135 tankers and AWACS) that look like the Wright
Bros Flyer when viewed up close.
The point being
that large, Robotic, jetplanes are commonly and
routinely controlled by Pentagon's mad
scientists/engineers/joint-chiefs. Look at Pentagon's
latest Global Hawk, the Boeing-737-sized robotic recon
drone that doesn't even have a cockpit for a human
pilot. Or Predator recon drone that is also used in
bombing runs in Afganistan War. Or US Navy's Joe Kennedy
2's death-by-explosion as he tried to bail out of the
B24 Liberator drone as it was on its way to bomb a
NAZI rocket launching bunker. Or Pentagon/Boeing's
latest jet-powered UCAVs - Unmanned C
Read
the rest of this
comment... |
[ No
Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
Maude
(nomediaconspiracy@hotmail.com) on Thursday,
August 22 @ 00:22:17 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http:// |
| This is the biggest crock I have ever heard. Where
are your hard facts? I can't even refute this crap
because there is nothing but conjecture in this piece of
garbage. |
[ No Comments
Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
aychamo on Thursday, August 22 @ 22:49:02 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http://www.aychamo.com/ |
UGH - HELLO!
Who gives a damn if they can
use their Digital PCS cell-phones??
Remember:
They probably used the phones that are BUILT INTO THE
HEADRESTS, in EVERY SINGLE ROW on those planes. Those
planes have phones built into them, on every single row.
You just swipe your credit card through it, and it
charges your credit card, and you can talk.
It
uses whatever Airline Cell Phone service they
have. |
[ No Comments Allowed
for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
simon on Friday, August 23 @ 13:02:30 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
Here's a comment I got back when I copied this post
to a pilot's message board:
-----------------------------------------------------------
That wild flight of fantasy posted on another board
is misinformed and ignorant. It speaks not to the facts,
but to a kid who spends too much time on computer games
and conspiracy theory.
He's talking about FMS
programming, which performs within certain perameters.
The FMS was not used to fly the airplanes into the
buildings. They were handflown. The limitations the
ill-informed author (Jim Heikkila) described do NOT
apply when the airplane is handflown. Software does not
protect the airplane in such circumstances.
The
airplanes performance limitations can be exceeded. The
posting by Mr. Heikkila is nonsensical and ignorant.
Don't give it a moments notice, as it means nothing.
Neither of those airplanes are flown by 'remote
control,' and they were not flown by remote control on
09/11. Such fantasy is stupidity.
The CVR tapes
were NOT 'blank.' A great deal of information has been
obtained from data recorders and voice recorders; the
poster is lying, or very ignorant.
'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.'
A completely nonsensical statement. A
CVR can be manually erased or stopped, but the mic isn't
'redirected.' It can be set for a lip mic, or an area
mic, but it still picks up everything that is said,
including very minute cockpit noises such as the
flipping of a switch or the pulling of a breaker.
The poster is apparently passing himself off as
someone who knows a lot, when in fact he doesn't even
know a little. Ignore him; his information is nothing
more than lies and mistruths designed to deceive and
misinform. There is no substance to his
comments. |
[ No Comments
Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Brain of Exceeded"Expert"MIND
Limits! (Score: 1) by killroy
on Saturday, August 24 @ 19:16:48 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
"cannot override 1.5G limit" is FALSE! (Please
someone This insistence write good text,I'm not good for
english)
This 'Expert' is don't know Airplane
whitout it's can flight and little bullshit.
From Boeing's 757 Official Aircraft
operationmanual 1-7 Aircraft Limitation.
'Operating maximam limit G' Flap Up +2.5G ~
-1.0G Flap Down +2.0G ~ -0.0G
1.5G
limit?????YOU are LIAR!!!!! 5W cell Phone????You are
CRAZY!!!!! It mean This is not cell,Wireless home
phone. or Ham's Phone patch. If cell size output
5W,When taking 20 min,buttry go empty. And this cell
too hot like body warmer.
If '1.5G Limit' is
true,This 757or767 is very dangerous crap. It can't
brake many Accident.
It Just like Type-T Ford
tuned V8 engine can running 100mph (other all parts
is Type-T FORD) 'KAMIKAZE Special' Type-T Ford run
100mph. When you turn the wheel for avoid crash.
Can't avoid crash but able to go straight to hell.
B-757&767 is When limit over,warning is only
worningm, Pilot can do more high G manuver.
Airline's Pilot is training 2.5G flight.
'FANTASTIC'1.5G limit 757 or 767 can't do training.
Huh,doze 10 Valium tablet and sleep.... or
you write Daydream? or your brain turn on by
acid? |
[ No Comments Allowed
for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
Goyum on Monday, September 30 @ 08:41:09 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) |
I did not know that anyone responded or even found
this post, I do not come here often. Here is my rebuttal
to the rebuttals
Mos33q has microwave
communications as part of the subject matter, but Mos33q
focuses mainly on other technonlogies that are more
advanced. It is a fact that MOS33Q is the most advanced
training the military offers on anything anywhere,
period. It is a 99th percentile MOS.
How about
making a phone call from a commercial airplane? ever
done it? NOPE!! I know you have not, because it cannot
be done.
The reasons I gave were to make a lay
person understand, in sensible terms. Whoever said the
new cell phones cannot hit three watts transmit power is
not in the cell phone business, ALL cell phones have
dual transimit powers, the lower being less than a watt
and the upper being three watts. To make a point, I used
best case scenario.
You cannot transmit twenty,
ten, or even five miles in any reliable way with less
than a watt. That's about the same output as the speaker
on a cheap clock radio. The antenna can make a huge
difference, having worked a lot with radios after
military service the best antenna, or even the second
best is not on those cheap cell phones. So there are two
issues at play; one is low transmit power, and the other
is insufficient antenna. So try it, please try it, I
would bet you a beer if I could deliver it, that there
is no way in heck you can call from a commercial style
jet aircraft while in flight at speed. Transmit power is
one issue, the one I used to keep it simple. But when
you factor in how the composites in a boeing type craft
will impede the signal, doppler shift in a digitally
locked system caused from aircraft speed,
unidirectionality of the recieving antennaes, designed
to pick up ground transmissions and not airborne ones, a
whole can of worms opens up and the bottom line is that
you cannot call from one of those planes while in flight
at speed. Have you ever succeeded in doing it? You have
not. No one has. It cannot be done. I challenge you to
be silent until you try. Ahh, I challenge you to be
silient AFTER you try.
Ok, so avionics is not my
field. But I spent a lot of time surfing out the craft
used. Yep, they have hydraulic direct linked controls,
BUT THEY ALSO HAVE AUTOPILOT!
Everything has had
autopilot for years. The 757/767 project was the pioneer
project for remote controlled commuter aircraft. Just
because there is in fact a hydraulic linkage between the
pilot and the plane does not mean that there cannot be
automatic controls elsewere. To claim this would mean
that there was no way to put cruise control or
intermittant wipers in a Ford Explorer.
The 757
and 767, just as I said, come standard with everything
needed to fly via remote control. When the remote
control/remote recovery system, designed to recover the
aircraft in the event of a hijacking is activated on the
standard model, it is possible for the aircraft to be
overtaken by the pilot via the cockpit controls, yes
that is true. But if you were going to perpetrate an
enormous crime against humanity, would you do it with
the standard model? I think not.
The 757/767
were an experiment in aircraft design, one in which
software upgrades could be used to change the
performance characteristics of the aircraft. The
upgrades are a simple thing and can be accomplished in
minutes. Forget Global Hawk, forget all that crap, 911
could have been done with a CD-R.
I admit, I was
wrong with the Max G's. Only the airbus, designed with a
system SIMILAR to the 757/767 limits the aircraft
performance so by assuming too many similarities I was
wrong with that. In fact, upon realizing it I had hoped
my former article had not made the rounds, that was an
issue in which I was flat out wrong, which would
undermine the rest of the article.
To sum it up,
You cannot call on a personal
cell/digital/whatever personal phone while in flight at
speed in a 757/67, I would like all do
Read
the rest of this
comment... |
[ No
Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register
]
Re: Planes of 911 Exceeded Their
Software Limits (Score: 1) by
greenmannowar on Sunday, April 20 @ 17:03:49 MDT (User
Info | Send
a Message) http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/ghost_riders_1-4_1.h
|
Cell phone hypothisis Testing has been done on
this already, the link to the results are on the link
below.
I am a senior design RF cell phone
engineer ( cellular/CDMA engineer) and have
designed systems for Sprint, Verizon and Alltel. I have
2 FCC licenses and have worked in the industry for 13
yrs. That out of the way... OK all of the new
handsets are .6 to 1 watt max. From what i read
several calls were made on flight 93 some were reported
to last as long as 20 minuits. NO WAY ! We design these
systems to work on the ground, ususally providing
"downtilt" to the antenna, so the signal gets pointed
downward. There are calculations to do this. The
range for a call site is 5 to 20 miles max, but that is
on the ground. The handshaking is now refered to in
digital as soft handoff, or hard handoff if you are
going between systems, or in an analog mode. most phones
today are now digital, though some can do both. for a
handoff to occur( going from one cell to another) the
system needs to have a neighbor list setup, telling the
phone which cell is next on the list( i have made around
100 of these). at 500mph, the phone would have passed
several sites and it would try to handoff to a site
already passed. The phone can be in handoff with up to 3
sites at one time, but generally this can make things
worse as it will degrade the signal. Also inside of a
metal plane, the signal degrades ( it does in a car,
or building by 3 to 6 db or more) I have done in
building testing for years. each 3 db means 1/2 power.
inside a metal plane i would guess it would be about the
same, if you stick the antenna next to a window, MAYBE
only 1 to 2 bd loss, but still a loss. i havent tested
it, but i have a lot of experience in this area. Note
there is a lot of messaging between the phone and the
site, and at that height the signal would be quite low
and the phone would get confused as to which site it is
on.
I dont know the height the plane was at at
that time, but the higher it is, the more signals come
in, which degrades the quality and confuses the phone
more, not to mention lowering the signal level. 1
more thing, in remote areas, where these calls were made
i believe, these companies do not build many sites. The
sites cost 1/2 million a peice or so. Just try
driving from 1 city to another through a very rural area
and see if your phone works, we point the antennas down
the highways to get the most out of each site. Planes do
not fly along highways.
when i first heard this,
it didnt add up | |