9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Apologies to anyone who's not, erm, remotely interested in Avionics... Just skip to WouldBe's next apology. 
Unless, of course, they were fitted with Honeywell Pegasus FMCs. But hey, let's not split hairs.
To suggest (as you appear to) that the MCP is the ONLY way data can enter the FCS/FMC is simply retarded. How the fuck do you suppose the rest of the avionic systems communicate with an FCS/FMC? Grows arms and reach over?
WouldBe, you really need to read up on ACARS (Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System), particularly ARINC Specs 618 and 619 (these are the standards that define the datalink protocols between the aircraft and the ground and the various onboard avionic systems).
Once you have done so, perhaps you can explain why exactly still you believe that - now knowing that an engineer on the ground can send instruction sets to an FCS inflight (to carry out diagnostic routines, for instance) - such a system cannot possibly be used to affect other FCS controlled parameters.
WouldBe said:
Unless, of course, they were fitted with Honeywell Pegasus FMCs. But hey, let's not split hairs.
Another one of your bizzare assumptions. That's rather like saying 'My computer cannot possibly utilise Windows Update/be hacked because it's got a serial port'. Which would be a stupid thing to assume.WouldBe said:
The MCP (Mode Control Panel) is there to provide an interface for the flight crew. It's the panel with the buttons on.WouldBe said:
To suggest (as you appear to) that the MCP is the ONLY way data can enter the FCS/FMC is simply retarded. How the fuck do you suppose the rest of the avionic systems communicate with an FCS/FMC? Grows arms and reach over?
WouldBe, you really need to read up on ACARS (Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System), particularly ARINC Specs 618 and 619 (these are the standards that define the datalink protocols between the aircraft and the ground and the various onboard avionic systems).
Once you have done so, perhaps you can explain why exactly still you believe that - now knowing that an engineer on the ground can send instruction sets to an FCS inflight (to carry out diagnostic routines, for instance) - such a system cannot possibly be used to affect other FCS controlled parameters.
Having seen how gabby - and how fiercely defensive of their professional autonomy - pilots are on (for example) www.pprune.org, it really does seem rather unlikely that any remote-control system would have gone unexposed for more than... ooh, three minutes at most...
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
laptop said:
It's strange, you know.
There's a poster here who's old man took early retirement (737 pilot for a major UK airline) because he apparently didn't feel 'comfortable' with what he saw as a threat to his 'professional autonomy' posed by the ingress of computers onto the flightdeck. I know of others - but wouldn't want to bring mere anecdotal evidence to the thread.
Bear in mind also that pprune archives don't go back very far... the tech forum (where one would usually see such rumblings) not even a month, for instance.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Don't spend too long on pprune, though... You'll never fly again! 
-
PS Happy Birthday, Jazzz, my evil twin.
-
PS Happy Birthday, Jazzz, my evil twin.
Backatcha Bandit said:
But the advent of automatic systems management (can't be arsed to look up the acronym) and even of ILS is an entirely suffiecient explanation for that, isn't it? Anyone with a handlebar mustache mentality asked to retrain for an Airbus 3xx is going to have problems.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Fair point - there aren't many of the 'old school' left... but I wouldn't say that I find modern computers any more trustworthy than their predecessors.
By the way... I don't have any particular 'belief' regarding remote control and 9/11*. I just can't sit by and watch self-proclaimed 'experts' talking shit.
Dismiss the 'evidence-free' remote theory if you will - but do so on the basis of technological fact, rather than ill-informed conjecture and twadge.
I mean, it's not like it's impossible or unprecedented, the cunts even had the idea on the table in 1962, for fucks sake! Read a bit on how the US military are deeply intertwined with the commercial avionics industry, utilising COTS (commercial of the shelf) components in even the most hardcore hi-tech airbourne systems (to the point where you wonder how much the 'civilian' side is subsidising the military applications) and you may well find you go from 'unlikely' to 'WHOA!' rather quicker than you imagined possible.
*That's not to say it isn't exactly what I'd have done if I were 'THEM'! (Psy-ops 101).
By the way... I don't have any particular 'belief' regarding remote control and 9/11*. I just can't sit by and watch self-proclaimed 'experts' talking shit.
Dismiss the 'evidence-free' remote theory if you will - but do so on the basis of technological fact, rather than ill-informed conjecture and twadge.
I mean, it's not like it's impossible or unprecedented, the cunts even had the idea on the table in 1962, for fucks sake! Read a bit on how the US military are deeply intertwined with the commercial avionics industry, utilising COTS (commercial of the shelf) components in even the most hardcore hi-tech airbourne systems (to the point where you wonder how much the 'civilian' side is subsidising the military applications) and you may well find you go from 'unlikely' to 'WHOA!
' rather quicker than you imagined possible.*That's not to say it isn't exactly what I'd have done if I were 'THEM'! (Psy-ops 101).
Backatcha Bandit said:
But the same goes for fusion power and laser weapons.
Doesn't mean it's doable - and the most important part of "doable" in this instance is bureaucratically doable.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Anyway... here's Al with the news:
Well, fancy that.
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/108240131/-1/business
Well, fancy that.
snadge
metal alchemist
Backatcha Bandit said:Anyway... here's Al with the news:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/108240131/-1/business
Well, fancy that.
fucking fruitloop
editor said:
Another decent poster bites the dust. You're doing an excellent job of homogonising your website editor. You just seem to love having your finger on the button, bet you'd like to be the prez with the nuclear button under your finger. Power eh! Wonderful innit.
You've hardly got any dissenting voices left any more, i can only deduce this is what you want. Your political forums and threads are boring as fuck, the only ones that have any interest are the 911 threads based on the numbers of posts they continually gather. Until you bin them that is. That finger again eh.
Even the mainstream media allow more debate than you do, and i thought you wanted an alternative kind of media. You are very keen on censoring people, banning them, and binning threads. Power eh, what a magical thing it is.
editor said:
Shall i cry for you mate? It's a tough tough world out there. Mind you, we could be iraqi or afghan or burmese. Then we really might have reason to cry.
You often fail to recognise context. The massive levels of abuse you have levelled at squeegee... are you not surprised if it comes back to you?
It might not seem like it, but i do try to be constructive in my criticism (sometimes), so when i say you are cutting out all dissenting voices what i mean is that you are making your political forums more boring and homogonous. The problem with success is that it often eats itself. Your call any road.
editor said:Says unbanned fela fan with nearly TEN THOUSAND POSTS to his name!
So, is that your evidence that you don't censor posters, you don't ban them, and you don't bin threads?
Wow! Hey, just give us a minute and i'll come up with reams of evidence that 911 was an inside job. I mean, if evidence is that easy...
Many of which are repetitive bilge.fela fan said:
Those of you who constantly whinge about "censorship" really have no idea how fucking tedious it is to read the same old bollocks repeated time, after time, after time, after time ... ad fucking nauseum. It continues despite being blown out of the water by evidence from others. In really obvious cases where even the poster hasn't got the brass neck to keep on, it goes quiet for a few weeks and then is re-posted as if it is news.
I haven't seen any suggestion that dissenting voices are censored. Challenged, yes, but not censored. Posters are only banned when they get tedious and when they repeatedly fail to comply with the FAQ.
And anyway, what do you think the editor is running here? Some fucking public service? His site, his rules.
If you don't like it then fuck off and spout bilge to your nutter mates somewhere else.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
detective-boy said:
I read some advice somewhere that could save you having to read such 'bilge'.
Now, where was it? Ah, yes:
detective-boy said:
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Backatcha Bandit said:Unless, of course, they were fitted with Honeywell Pegasus FMCs. But hey, let's not split hairs.
Big IF there.
From http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0601&file=0601fans.htm
So the system automatically 'asks' the aircraft where it is then sends a 'text' type message to the pilot advising of course / height changes.
Woopie fucking do. Really remote control then isn't it.
So what your saying here is the manufacturer of the FCS don't know themselves how it works.
There is a socket on car engine management units that can be used to 'download' data and upload data it doesn't mean you can remote control a car and definately not without having something physically plugged into the socket.
Now you really are being stupid. Perhaps you can explain how you get a radio to talk directly to the compass system to get the plane to alter course or talk directly to a pitot tube (air pressure sensor) to get the plane to alter height.
That report on the use of FANS says it's only for use in remote areas with little traffic. Do you seriously think, even if it could be used to remote control an aircraft, that ATC would be happy with aircraft changing flight plans as they automatically see fit in highly crowded airspace?
Who says I read it? Because I am more than well aware that sometimes reliable new information comes up in unexpected places I scan it just in case. But you will have noticed I don't engage in discussing it once we have been round the block a couple of times.Backatcha Bandit said:
Why other posters do amazes me. What is wrong with saying "Well, I believe it and if you don't believe it that's a matter for you" and then just leaving it. What makes you all think that if you repeat it enough you'll convince us?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Ah, but DB is interested in it, just pissed off with people who expound the same clap trap that's been shown to be bullshit time and time and time and time again.nick1181 said:
I think.
detective-boy said:
Takes two to tango. At least 50% of this arguments (and about 90% of the posts) on these threads are from people trying to convince the conspiracy theorists that they're wrong - more often than not by labelling them as being mentally defective and by using... (shudder) alliteration.
Obviously this doesn't work. If you really want to convince fruitloop fantasists to forgo their fact-free-fantasies aliteration won't do it - they've become desensitised. No. If you really want to change hearts and minds, you have to get everything to rhyme.
So that's my thought for the day.
You're right.Bob_the_lost said:
There are some genuine questions / areas in which the released evidence is thin or non-existent. Although overall I believe that this was a genuine attack - and that there was no deliberate "let it happen" scenario on any official level - there may be things to raise genuine concerns about competence / capability. I have not got time to research the whole thing myself and I get very, very pissed off when links are posted which allegedly say (or "prove") one thing only to find they don't. If people would restrict themselves to things which are known, and focus on evidence, rather than speculation and if they would discard ideas when they are disproven and focus on those which are still unexplained, they would stand a far better chance of actually getting somewhere.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Backatcha Bandit said:
Ha, ha, ha. Nurse I've just PMSL.
These ARINC spec 618 and 619 are specifications like IEEE488 and RS232. They specify how devices are connected i.e. twisted pair of wires, what the message format is (similar to 1 start bit, 8 data bits, 1 parity bit, 2 stop bits), what the transmission speed is (baud rate) and if I could be arsed to spend $218 getting the full spec will include voltage levels, line length / resistance and other stuff.
Just like with RS232 you can connect anything you like to the transmission line the actual spec cannot tell you what commands to send to operate the printer, scanner or whatever else you decide to connect to the other end of the cable.
Considering as well you can have programmable diagnostics then command 'F' (or whaterver commands they are) might result in an engine diagnostic running one week, a VHF radio diagnostic another week and an undercarriagd diagnostis the week after that, depending what has been programmed.
As for the idea of upgrading the FCS software via radio do you think it's wise to have to re-start the FCS in mid flight considering the FCS is keeping the aircraft in the air?
If you get tired of the day job have you thought of going into comedy?
WouldBe said:
Does not accepting the pancake theory automatically make him a conspiraloon in your eyes?
I said the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, and any resistance was clearly minimal. The pancake theory fails to account for the speed of the sudden and total collapse, at the rate of roughly 10 floors per second.
Here is a question for everybody.
If the official story was that Al-Qaeda had managed to plant explosives in the buildings, do you think anybody would believe the pancake theory?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
