Welcome to friends of Liberty!
.: Home | Your Account | Submit News | Downloads | Search | Topics | Top 10 :.
  Main Menu
 Home
 Discussion Forums  Archives
 Downloads
 Feedback
 Members List
 Private Messages
 Recommend Us
 Reviews
 Search
 Statistics
 Submit News
 Surveys
 Topics
 Web Links
 Your Account
 

  Advertising


 

  Crucial Reading



 

  Privacy

Use This Free Privacy Sofware Now
Zone Alarm
Anonymizer


Who's Sending You Junk: Find Out
Sam Spade

 

  Who's Online
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
 

  Media Center
DAILY NEWS

Breaking News
Cryptome.org
ClandestineRadio
DXing.info
UnderReported.com
Hacktivismo.com
MilitaryCorruption.com
AllSouthWestNews
Freedom 21 Santa Cruz
Globalism News
BigEye.com
AP Top Headlines

AP National
AP Washington
AP International
AP Business
AP Wall Street
AME Info
BBC News
BBC

Bloomberg
Business News
Business Week
Capitalism Mag

CBS MarketWatch
Eaglesup
EUbusiness
Eastern Review
FinanceAsia.com
Financial Review
Financial Times

Forbes
Idaho Observer
IndependentSA

Intern Herald
Insight Mag

The Economist
Fast Company
Forbes
Fortune
Kiplinger's

Inc.com
Industry Week
Money
LewRockwell.com

Ludwig von Mises
New American
New Australian

NewsMax
Opinion Journal
Reuters
Stories

Washington
International
Business
US Markets
Sierra Times
VDARE
Wash Times
Wired News

Eaglesup
Information Clearing House
GoOff.com
CentrExNews
Government Information Awareness
Breaking All the Rules
 

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits



General News
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. "




 
  Login
Nickname

Password

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.
 

  Related Links
 More about General News
 News by editor


Most read story about General News:
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

 

  Article Rating
Average Score: 3.07
Votes: 265


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


 

  Options

Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend
 

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 32 comments
Threshold
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 in my head.

              http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/index.html

              airplane testing
              http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/media_release_030304.html

              results
              http://feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/project_achilles_report_2_030225.html

              Brad Mayeux
              cdmaman@engineer.com
              my engineering page
              http://www.geocities.com/RF_man_CDMA/


              [ No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register ]



                 

                All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
                All comments are property of their posters, all the rest 2002 by Friends of Liberty.

                Friends of Liberty is powered by the PHP-Nuke website engine.
                Copyright 2002 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.