Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[fela fan]

"Parsing your insults, ad hominem attacks, sneering, snidey insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'tinfoil hatter' or 'conspiracy theorist', half-arsed looney toon straw man constructions and lame attempts at rhetorical questions, followed by more lame attempts at rhetorical questions, followed by endless repetitions of the same lame attempts at rhetorical questions off my screen isn't going to effect that in the slightest."

Seconded.

 

[pbman]

"Parsing your insults, ad hominem attacks, sneering, snidey insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'tinfoil hatter' or 'conspiracy theorist', half-arsed looney toon straw man constructions and lame attempts at rhetorical questions, followed by more lame attempts at rhetorical questions, followed by endless repetitions of the same lame attempts at rhetorical questions off my screen isn't going to effect that in the slightest."

Seconded.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave then.

 

[fela fan]

Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave then.

No, i'll let it smash into my face. Keep my arse intact, don't want to lose my voice now do I...

 

[pbman]

No, i'll let it smash into my face. Keep my arse intact, don't want to lose my voice now do I...

Works for me.

Look closly at the bottom right corner of this photo, i'm sure their a conspiracy for you there as well.

And it is a real photo.

 

[fela fan]

Works for me.

Really?!

As for the picture, nice little mupped, but i'm not into conspiracies, like i keep trying to say. Whether it's by governments or civilians.

'Conspiracy theorist' has a new meaning in the lexicon. Its effect is to say "i believe in the official theory, and you're bonkers for trying to pick holes in it for coming up with alternative theories".

In a way, anyone who doesn't know for sure, is following some kind of conspiracy. And none of us know for sure, coz none of us were involved in the planning of the attacks.

It's all conjecture, but i for one ain't ever gonna believe the crap and spin and lies that leaders spew forth on a 24/7 basis. They might tell the truth once in a while, but it's like looking for a needle in a haystack, and that's a waste of fucking time.

 

[Jangla]

It's obvious that some people haven't actually read some of my posts. I'm not that mad about the faked calls theory but had a crack at providing a reply to Ed's request for evidence that it could be done (allbeit with some advance warning!) and it was meant to be a little tongue in cheek.

Even if this is disproven, there still remains the fact that the flight attendants seat numbers don't match the USG's (and Ed, these weren't busy flights - the passenger lists are strangely short and it's against most airlines policy to allow passengers to move seats once on board. An experienced flight attendant would easily be able to tell which passengers had switched especially in the business class section as there are only a handfull of seats), eye witness reports are ignored in favour of reports from people either not at the scene or from "unnamed sources", video seems to show foreign objects on the exterior of at least one plane, some of the alleged hijackers have been verified as being alive and well, most of the alleged hijackers had little or no flight experience and a whole host of other gaping holes in the official story mean that accpeting the "truth" is as far fetched as some of the consipracy theories.

 

[editor]

Hang on... Have we been here before? Deja Vu?

So that's just two or three edits in the last six months. Wow!

That's well worth whining about and well worth clogging this thread up with with irrelevant cut and paste.

 

[editor]

Parsing your insults, ad hominem attacks, sneering, snidey insinuations that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'tinfoil hatter' or 'conspiracy theorist'

Kindly produce a single quote from me in this thread where I refer to anyone as a 'tinfoil hater' or apologise.

I don't like liars and I don't like people attacking me with fabricated, ad hominem attacks.

Back up or shut up. You're clearly pretty good at dredging through posts to prove your petty points - so off you go then!

 

[editor]

Even if this is disproven, there still remains the fact that the flight attendants seat numbers don't match the USG's (and Ed, these weren't busy flights - the passenger lists are strangely short and it's against most airlines policy to allow passengers to move seats once on board.

Sorry. This is rubbish. I've changed seats several times on less-busy flights and if I hadn't been such a scruffy git, I would have been offered the same onboard upgrades that some of my smarter friends have enjoyed.

On hop-on internal flights, it's far less unusual for people to swap seats and move about once onboard so I really don't find anything 'strange' about your comments about the passenger list.

What I do find strange, however, is how people can believe in faked calls to loved ones.

 

[editor]

Seconded.

Seeing as you're so keen to gang up here, now you find as single quote from me in this thread where I refer to 'tinfoil hatters' or you can apologise too.

Off you go!

 

[WouldBe]

When were bi-directional data links first utilised in commercial avionics? I thought you were the expert.

My previous link mentions it (1997) for a start.
Here's a leaflet about it. Some nice colourful graphics so you won't have to bother actually reading it.

What do you class as a bi-directional data link?

The first link you posted, each article was all of 1 paragraph long and states

controller / pilot data link

What controller?

The article doesn't specify. Microcontrollers / processors are fitted in lots of electronic equipment. So for example the engine fire warning goes off. The pilot responds by pressing the fire extinguisher button. This is a bi directional data system. The aircraft tells the pilot of a problem, the pilot tells the aircraft what to do about it.

A radio is a bi-directional data system. The air traffic controller tells the pilot to turn to a specific heading or climb to a certain height. The pilot also relays data back to ATC using the radio.

I can't check your rockwellcollins link as the site is not responding.

Wouldbe, you'll have to forgive me, but (dispite your Btec) I really am starting to think that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Can I hear the data when I use VOIP? How about when I pick up the phone that is on the same line as my DSL connection?

I find this rich comming from someone who apparently doesn't know how a telephone or transceiver works let alone anything as complicated as avionics so let me fill you in.

A telephone (landline) system is a duplex system i.e. both callers can talk at the same time and you can both hear each other talking over the other party. DSL works by modulating the PC data onto the phone line so the PC can be sending data to the net while voice data is coming the other way. The signals do not interfere with each other due to the micro filter you plug into the phone socket.

A transceiver system is a simlex system i.e. you can either transmit or receive hence the need to say 'over' when you have finished to let the other party know that they can talk. Receiver sensitivity is about 10mW. Transmitter power is in the order of 10W - 50W. What do you think would happen if you tried to transmit and receive at the same time? That's right you burn out the receiver stage because you have overloaded it with a signal some 1000 times higher that it was designed to handle.

So this mystery bidirectional data that could use the VHF / UHF radio system now has to have the abiltity to not only detect when the pilot / ATC are talking so that possibly vital voice data is lost, but also has to be able to predict when the piolt / ATC are about to transmit for the same reason.

You also could not have 2 separate antenna for transmit and receive as the signal strength from the transmitter would block out the much weaker signals from the ground.

 

[fela fan]

Seeing as you're so keen to gang up here, now you find as single quote from me in this thread where I refer to 'tinfoil hatters' or you can apologise too.

Off you go!

I'm not wading through two hundred posts, so i'll take your word for it, no probs.

But i think you'll find backatcha was talking about 9/11 threads in general, so in that context i'm sure he's right. But context seems to often be unimportant...

Two makes a gang does it? And when one is part of a whole group of posters that continually has to suffer derision and accusations of being a loony/nutter/CT, then just what is so wrong with one of that group saying 'aye' in agreeance with what he believes to be true? It's not 'ganging up', it's simply one poster agreeing with another poster.

Isn't that allowed in debates?

 

[Irish Bandit]

I can see it now!

The flight crew boarded the plane, and realising it wasn't under their control, sat back and decided to let themselves be murdered.

Oh wait, thats insane.

 

[bigfish]

Ooh look, Spudchester United have signed a new player.

Come on you Spudducks!

 

[editor]

Ooh look, Spudchester United have signed a new player.

Come on you Spudducks!

This curious outburst seems to suggest that you're really losing it.

I suggest you partake in a nice quiet lie down in a darkened room somewhere before posting up any more gibberish.

 

[editor]

I'm not wading through two hundred posts, so i'll take your word for it, no probs.

I think the words you're looking for are: "I'm sorry. I was wrong".

 

[Jazzz]

I can see it now!

The flight crew boarded the plane, and realising it wasn't under their control, sat back and decided to let themselves be murdered.

Oh wait, thats insane.

I agree - why it was necessary for the perperatrators to switch Flights 11, 175, and77 for automated drones.

 

[editor]

I agree - why it was necessary for the perperatrators to switch Flights 11, 175, and77 for automated drones.

So remind me what happened to the original planes, the pilots, the cabin staff and the passengers and how they managed to cover up this remarkable switch.

 

[Jazzz]

Why, is your memory loss really that bad?

 

[WouldBe]

Wouldbe holds his hands up and admits he's made a mistake. After all it has been a few years since I was in the Avionics field. So to Backatcha Bandit I apologise BUT only in part.

I have done a search, on the rockwell collins site for the system that BB tried to link to that doesn't work for me and I found this.
VHF radio It would seem that aircraft radio CAN transmit and receive data

The Collins VHF-4000( ) provides high-speed data communications

I did a bit more digging and found CMU-4000 that allows higher speed data comms, can interface with the HF, VHF and satellite radio systems and can interface with other avionics on the 757.

However the data transmitted is

graphical weather uplinks and flight plan recall/performance updates. In addition users can downlink engine and fuel performance data, use a ground terminal to track locations for a whole fleet of aircraft and uplink and downlink flight deck e-mail and air to air messages.

Hardly the mistery remote control system we are looking for then is it

What's more I found this Live ACARS data

Do a google search for ACARS and you will find a whole load of other sites, including amateur sites telling you how to connect a VHF radio to your PC and including free software so that you can track aircraft and read any communications between the ground and the aircraft yourself in real time.

So if this system is the system that could have been used to remote control the planes any one with a PC and a VHF transceiver could tap into the aircraft systems and do what the like with them.

Hardly the sort of system commercial airlines are likely to go for eh.

 

[editor]

Why, is your memory loss really that bad?

No. It's because I don't believe you've given a direct answer. But if it is my memory playing up, I'm sure you won't mind refreshing it with a brief resume of what happened to all those people - and the planes, of course.

And - correct me if I'm wrong - do you believe that holographic jets were used?

 

[fela fan]

I think the words you're looking for are: "I'm sorry. I was wrong".

Oh no, dream on man. How can you be so wrong??

As usual you ignore the context.

But that's about right for someone who relies upon emotive language, consisting largely of adjectives.

Hah, you telling me i'm wrong?? Where's your mirror gone man?

And as for apologies, have you ever made one?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Wouldbe holds his hands up and admits he's made a mistake. After all it has been a few years since I was in the Avionics field. So to Backatcha Bandit I apologise BUT only in part.

Thanks for that, Wouldbe. I trust you will accept my apologies for insulting you as I did in post 173.

Your post regarding the ACARS stuff and the 'amateur activities' associated with it really does open up a whole load of questions regarding security of such systems.

We would hope that security is considered paramount, although I would have hoped the same thing regarding such things as electronic ballot systems, for instance.

The big question now would appear to be 'what systems were installed on the aircraft in question?'...

Any resources where this info could be obtained spring to mind?

I am given to understand that we should be looking to 'Honeywell', although I have yet to properly confirm this.

Anyway, there is this on the Honeywell Avionics site:

Which would confirm that potential points of access to the FMS exceed even my assumptions.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It doesn't fill one with confidence that they can't even spell "thrust". Unless they're actually referring to a "thirst management computer", which would be handy.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

It doesn't fill one with confidence that they can't even spell "thrust". Unless they're actually referring to a "thirst management computer", which would be handy.

Don't say that! I live on a flightpath.

They put VOR in twice, too...

 

[FridgeMagnet]

And this is what happens when you let engineers do their own documentation....

 

[editor]

Oh no, dream on man. How can you be so wrong??

Let's not quibble. Produce a single quote from me in this thread where I refer to 'tinfoil hatters' and I'll be the first to apologise.

Off you go then!

Looking forward to it!

 

[fela fan]

Let's not quibble. Produce a single quote from me in this thread where I refer to 'tinfoil hatters' and I'll be the first to apologise.

Off you go then!

Looking forward to it!

That's fine by me too, but c'mon man, i've already answered this you. I cannot find one, don't want to wade through the thread, and am most happy to take your word for it.

But like i said before, we were talking about the 911 threads in general, not just this one. And i feel certain you've used that term in the past. But really, it just isn't important. You can use it all you want.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The big question now would appear to be 'what systems were installed on the aircraft in question?'...

From the Boeing site (my bold):

The flight deck of the 757-300, like that of the 757-200, is designed for two-crew member operation and furnished with digital electronic displays.

A computerized, fully integrated flight management system (FMS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the airplane from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the FMS assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The pilot and the copilot each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation and navigation. One display shows an electronic attitude director indicator and the other an electronic horizontal situation indicator.

Several flight deck improvements have been made on both the 757-300 and the 757-200. The Pegasus flight management computer (FMC) and an enhanced engine indication and crew alerting system (EICAS) are now standard on both 757 models. With the Pegasus FMC, operators can choose optional software that enables elements of the future air navigation system (FANS). FANS functions provide operators with the ability to use advanced systems, such as global positioning system (GPS) sensors and satellite communications (SATCOM), to take full advantage of new communication, navigation and air traffic management systems for more efficient routing and decreased trans-oceanic traffic separation.

The EICAS upgrade replaces existing computers with enhanced devices that are software loadable. The new EICAS has improved built-in test equipment (BITE) functions that allow for improved self-diagnosis of faults in a more readable format. On-board software loading allows operators to use the same EICAS computer as a replacement on any 757 or 767. That reduces the required inventory of spare parts.

Other improvement to the 757 are an enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS), intended to reduce controlled flight into terrain, a new software-loadable flight control computer (FCC) and an enhanced windshear warning system. The 757-300 also incorporates the latest technology air data/inertial reference system (ADIRS).

Also of possible interest is this (pdf) FAA memo dated July 28, 1997 entitled "Report on the Boeing 757 / 767 Future Air Navigation System (FANS) 1 Pegasus Navigation Functional Hazard Assessment (FHA)"

Besides containing the navigation function, the Boeing 747-400 FMCS Future Air Navigation System (FANS) also contain communication / data link and automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) functions.

This facinating document reveals that there were certain (non flight critical) Y2K issues with the Honeywell / Pegasus FMS systems fitted to 757/767 aircraft.

This necessitated either software, or in the case of the older aircraft, hardware upgrades to the Flight Management Systems ('Due to parts obsolescence, 100K disk flight management computers will not be supported by Honeywell after December 1999').

Interesting - although I'm sure completely irrelevant to this discussion - BAe systems (who are about to merge with Boeing) have designed and built a 'Pegasus' all of their own... an unmanned aircraft.

BAE SYSTEMS and Northrop Grumman engineers employed these features to the development of Pegasus by running test software separate from the operating system - an arrangement that enabled them to test applications without having to instrument them with test points and special test code. This permitted the engineers to "fly what they test" by removing the test partition without affecting the flight-critical code.

-

Do a google search for ACARS and you will find a whole load of other sites, including amateur sites telling you how to connect a VHF radio to your PC and including free software so that you can track aircraft and read any communications between the ground and the aircraft yourself in real time.

So if this system is the system that could have been used to remote control the planes any one with a PC and a VHF transceiver could tap into the aircraft systems and do what the like with them.

Maybe I'd better get me a VHF transceiver, as it seems some people will continue to deny the possibility of remote hijack until I personally remotely fly a 767 through their bedroom window.

 

[Jazzz]

No. It's because I don't believe you've given a direct answer. But if it is my memory playing up, I'm sure you won't mind refreshing it with a brief resume of what happened to all those people - and the planes, of course.

And - correct me if I'm wrong - do you believe that holographic jets were used?

Christ, engaging with you is like some sort of Groundhog Day torture.

I suppose you never bothered to read the title post of "9-11: here's how they did it" those many moons ago.

Nor "Operation Pearl" (the same theory) - clearly you didn't bother to read the basic theory, you just skimmed it to find a single non-essential piece of detail which you felt you could attack (and did so for at least thirty posts here and there).

Nor several posts recently in which I have again been outlining my theory. Sometimes I wonder if you actually anyone's posts except where your rabid attacks are directly concerned...

Your 'debate' (I use the term with the greatest reluctance) is a collection of logical fallacies. Here's one that you make particularly good use of, along with ad hominems, appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, and unacceptable consequence...

Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it.

On Usenet, your argument is often less likely to be heard if you repeat it over and over again, as people will tend to put you in their kill files.