Robolander - piloting commercial jets by remote control

[Irish Bandit]

CNor "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)

'Operation Pearl' is a work of fiction that depends on the reader wanting to believe it. "Possibly could have happened" is not "Did happen" and that is where the theory falls flat on its face.

Possible to turn off transponders? Fool radar systems? Thats great, except there isn't a single shred of proof it happened. One eye witness statement that contradicts all others isn't definitive proof of anything.

 

[editor]

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).

That's where you're wrong. I bothered to read Operation Pearl and still find it amazing how any rational human can be suckered by Dewdney's preposterous tale about "amazing" low flying aircraft thundering illegally above the rush hour traffic of Long Island not being spotted by a single soul - other than the two conveniently anonymous 'eye witnesses' who just happened to get in touch with him.

Why do you believe in such charlatans, DrJ?

I would have thought that you would have learnt your lesson about swallowing such fact-free conjecture after you bought into Vialls odious and disgusting lies about the Soham murders.

But there again: you believe Vialls when he claims to be the only soul in the entire world who just happens to 'find' a completely untraceable, completely unpublished 'retired expert' (with no known history whatsoever) posting on completely untraceable bulletin boards.

Why are you so gullible? Why do you believe twats like Vialls? Don't you think that your disgusting bold claims that Huntley was innocent of all crimes should have taught you a lesson to more careful with your sources?

 

[Jazzz]

That's where you're wrong. I bothered to read Operation Pearl

Then why the hell are you asking me what happened to the passengers and the real flights?

And as you well know the Long Island bit is absolutely non-essential. I certainly didn't know about that report when I posted "9-11: here's how they did it" way before that. Straw man, and not a very good one.

 

[WouldBe]

Nor "Operation Pearl" (the same theory)

I pointed out 12 major errors / flaws in this plan on the other thread started by Fela Fan.

At that point I gave up reading Dowdney's cocked up theory so I could post the reply.

I later finished off reading the article, which is full of flaws / errors from start to finish.

 

[Jazzz]

I pointed out 12 major errors / flaws in this plan on the other thread started by Fela Fan.

At that point I gave up reading Dowdney's cocked up theory so I could post the reply.

I later finished off reading the article, which is full of flaws / errors from start to finish.

I addressed them all in a very long post which vanished into warp-space! I'll repeat it soon but am a bit exasperated right now. Dewdney's theory is not in the least cocked-up.

 

[WouldBe]

Dewdney's theory is not in the least cocked-up.

YES it is.

I have prooved this with links to reliable web sources. As for Longspaugh being an aeronautical engineer the closest he has probably got is building airfix kits.

 

[editor]

Then why the hell are you asking me what happened to the passengers and the real flights?

Because I'm asking you for YOUR OPINION

Dewdney's theory is not in the least cocked-up

What? It contains what could be generously described as a very, very dodgy evidence-free claim substantiated by no known living soul.

Some may say that his conveniently anonymous source providing conveniently supportive claims looks like a pack of lies from start to finish, but hey! who am I to tell people what they can believe in?!

 

[bigfish]

Dewdney's theory is not in the least cocked-up.

Dewdney's theory is a working hypothesis the "it was Al-Qaeda wot done it honest guv" conspiracy theorists are trying to annihilate through the simple tactic of ridiculing 2 eye-witness accounts of sightings of aircraft flying low by Long Island... which is odd when you consider that when asked to do so themselves none of the ridiculers have ever been able to produce a single eye-witness account of any of the NINETEEN A-Q phantoms actually passing through THREE different BUSY international airports on the morning of September 11 and yet all them believe—almost with a religious passion—in something that NO ONE witnessed not even annonymously!!!

So we have a situation here where a respected and learned academic, an emeritus professor of computer science at the University of Ontario no less, who is the author of numerous books and peer reviewed scientific papers, being cast as a charlatan or as being staggeringly inept and slipshod by a bloke with an art degree who's written one book on building websites and another bloke with a BTEC who used to be in the army!!

Isn't it marvelous!

 

[editor]

Dewdney's theory is a working hypothesis the "it was Al-Qaeda wot done it honest guv" conspiracy theorists are trying to annihilate through the simple tactic of ridiculing 2 eye-witness accounts of sightings of aircraft flying low by Long Island ...

Do you believe that those two large passenger aircraft flying "amazingly low and slow" over Long Island's rush hour traffic towards Manhattan existed or not?

And do you believe it's likely that the only two people to have witnessed the "amazing" sight of two planes flying in a highly dangerous and completely illegal formation over a population the size of Greater Manchester just happened to know how to track down Dewdney and tell him their story (while conveniently demanding anonymity)?

 

[editor]

So we have a situation here where a respected and learned academic, an emeritus professor of computer science at the University of Ontario no less, who is the author of numerous books and peer reviewed scientific papers, being cast as a charlatan or as being staggeringly inept and slipshod by a bloke with an art degree who's written one book on building websites and another bloke with a BTEC who used to be in the army!!

Damn right! Anyone who's got an academic record is incapable of getting anything wrong, being dishonest or twisting the truth! Great logic bigfish!

I'll tell you what: you don't need a Doctorate to sniff out a highly suspicious story when it's served up conveniently bereft of any independent eye witness accounts and completely free of corroborative evidence.

 

[bigfish]

you don't need a Doctorate to sniff out a highly suspicious story when it's served up conveniently bereft of any independent eye witness accounts and completely free of corroborative evidence.

Is this a reference to the 'Hijackers'?

 

[editor]

Is this a reference to the 'Hijackers'?

No. Right now I'm talking about Prof Dewdney's mysterious invisible planes.

Now will you answer my questions on this subject or are they just too damn tricky for you to wriggle out of?

 

[WouldBe]

Is this a reference to the 'Hijackers'?

I've explained a possible theory for this already.

I remember seeing on the news some years ago, several incidents were people had stowed away in the wheel housing of aircraft, only to be discovered when they fell out on landing either frozen to death or having severe hypothermia. So by your reconing these people MUST have passed through passport control and check-in as it's the only way to get on an aircraft!!!!!!!

In Dewdneys fairy story, he claims the reason the plane that hit the south tower had to swerve at the last minute was due to a cross wind, yet the plane that flew into the north tower heading in exactly the opposite direction managed to fly in perfectly apparently not affected by this wind.

He also claims that flight 77 was heading for the white house then changed it's mind and headed for the pentagon. Now if this was some sort of secret ops it would have had to be planned to the last details with agents standing by to plant the aircraft parts found inside and outside the crash site. So if you have planned for the agents to be inplace behind the white house, why then fly into the pentagon???? Also you would have to sneak the evidence past the camera crews and photographers in order to plant it!!!!!!

He also gives flight path info that I understand is taken from radar track. So again if this has been planned by the USG how come the flight to hit the north tower of the WTC took the wrong turning off its scheduled flight path, turning north AWAY from New York. Or is the USG supposed to be so inept as to not know it's way around it's own country!!!!!!!

 

[editor]

So by your reckoning these people MUST have passed through passport control and check-in as it's the only way to get on an aircraft!!!!!!!

US airline security continue to be full of holes.

Two years after 9/11 - when American airlines were supposed to be on high levels of security - a man managed to avoid all airport security checks and successfully shipped himself as air cargo from New York to Texas.
BBC

But events and acknowledgements from officials show that aviation security in the US is far from airtight and people are wondering what gaps could be exploited by America's enemies
BBC

 

[bigfish]

I've explained a possible theory for this already.

With all due respect WB, all you've done is propose an alternative method by which Al-Q might have boarded the aircraft. However, the problem is, your alternative stands in actual contradiction to the official version given out by the US authorities, which is the only one I or any of the other so called "conspiracy theorist" here are remotely interested in. In all seriousness, surely you can see that can't you?

The official version maintains that all 19 alleged 'hijackers' boarded all four aircraft by the normal method. Therefore, physical evidence and eye-witness accounts must exist establishing in fact their presence as they passed through all of the airports concerned.

So where is it?

Can I ask also WB, are you going to address the very important points made by Backatcha Bandit in his last post?

From what he's posted it would seem that control of these particular aircraft concerned could have be secured through the simple expedient of loading software into the existing system thereby overcoming the complication of introducing any hardware into the equation or indeed any 'hijackers'... what do you think?

By the way, good on you for correcting you're earlier error... it was refreshing to see you do that. If you carry on at this rate I'll be dropping you from the side

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

WRT 'hijackers' potential route onto an aircraft:

I've never flown a domestic flight in the US (unless you count Honalulu -> L.A.), but I'm sure that the airports / aircraft in question would use an airbridge for loading / unloading passengers? (anyone confirm this?)

I've been in and out of L.A. on transit desperately searching for any possible way to get 'outside' to smoke a ciggie (there were people with guns there to tell me I couldn't - 11.5 hrs there, 2 hrs in a fishtank and 11hrs on to Fiji... fucking gasping, I tell ya!). This was in '99 / 2000, too.

Also, don't the flight attendants check boarding passes and direct you to your assigned seat upon entry to the aircraft? I can't see how anyone could get onto a flight (let alone 'airside') without the docs (boarding pass / passport).

As BF points out above, the notion of hijackers sneaking aboard also contradicts the 'official version'.

As a side note, I read of plans to introduce RFID technology into boarding passes in the US...

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/privacy/story/0,10801,91830,00.html

 

[FridgeMagnet]

If by airbridges you mean those tube things that connect the terminal to the plane... no, not always, depends on the airport and the size of the plane. (I've not used those all the time at Heathrow for international flights, even when getting on 747s.)

Security for internal flights in the US is still relatively lax to be honest. There's a lot more routine flying than in the UK, and people treat it more like a train. I've not been on one for a year or so, but I'm going on one in May, so I should be able to tell you more then. I confidently expect that this thread or one just like it will still be going at that point....

Edit: oh hold on, I'm flying to Canada in May actually, that's not technically internal. Oh well.

 

[Barking_Mad]

From The Independent

American spy plane triggers UK air alert
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor
11 April 2004


A US air force remote-controlled spy plane with the wing span of a Boeing 737 entered UK airspace without permission, causing a major alert, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. Air-traffic controllers hurriedly granted the Global Hawk drone privileged airspace reserved for the Royal Family after the incursion was discovered, according to a senior defence official.

But the drone sparked a serious alert when it illegally strayed into UK airspace. "We had no idea what this thing was, had to hurriedly identify it and then give it 'purple airspace'. It was a major embarrassment that has been hushed up," said a civil servant.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/story.jsp?story=510483

 

[fela fan]

From The Independent



http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/story.jsp?story=510483

That's a very interesting story barking.

I also recall the USG claiming that Saddam Hussein had drones too. By that very claim, they knew that such things must exist. Obviously coz they have their own, and know all about such technology. Funny how politicians can give the game away when they've let their guard down.

It's what happens when you've lied so often, you can't remember what the previous lie was in order to at least continue the charade of telling the truth.

So now we know, that such technology DEFINTELY EXISTS. And it's just visited Britain too!!

 

[Loki]

I also recall the USG claiming that Saddam Hussein had drones too. By that very claim, they knew that such things must exist. Obviously coz they have their own, and know all about such technology. Funny how politicians can give the game away when they've let their guard down.

It's what happens when you've lied so often, you can't remember what the previous lie was in order to at least continue the charade of telling the truth.

So now we know, that such technology DEFINTELY EXISTS. And it's just visited Britain too!!

er, fela, sorry to spoil the fun but it's common knowledge that the USA has and uses spy drones... they were in use in Afghanistan, no secret about it at all.

 

[fela fan]

er, fela, sorry to spoil the fun but it's common knowledge that the USA has and uses spy drones... they were in use in Afghanistan, no secret about it at all.

Oh look, sorry, i'm actually quite wasted from a four hour journey driving through the brown as fuck mountains of northern Thailand, with the air con gamefully trying to negate the 37 degree sunrays...

[I better get off urban now before editor finds me writing more gibberish... ]

 

[Loki]

Plus it's not exactly cutting edge technology; enthusiasts can fly model planes around in parks, pretty much the same principle.

 

[Loki]

Oh look, sorry, i'm actually quite wasted from a four hour journey driving through the brown as fuck mountains of northern Thailand, with the air con gamefully trying to negate the 37 degree sunrays...

[I better get off urban now before editor finds me writing more gibberish... ]

lol

edit to add I think I would saw my right arm off to be in Thailand right now

 

[WouldBe]

With all due respect WB, all you've done is propose an alternative method by which Al-Q might have boarded the aircraft. However, the problem is, your alternative stands in actual contradiction to the official version given out by the US authorities

At no point have I stated that the USG version is true. As with Dewdney's version there are more holes in both versions than a net curtain. But that doesn't mean that Dewdney's fairy story is any more accurate never mind what actually happened.

Can I ask also WB, are you going to address the very important points made by Backatcha Bandit in his last post?

From what he's posted it would seem that control of these particular aircraft concerned could have be secured through the simple expedient of loading software into the existing system thereby overcoming the complication of introducing any hardware into the equation or indeed any 'hijackers'... what do you think?

Wrt Backatcha Bandits point

engine indication and crew alerting system.......The EICAS upgrade replaces existing computers with enhanced devices that are software loadable

The EICAS system monitors things like engine speed, eng temp, oil temp, air temp and the fire warning system. The only reason I can think you would require software instalation is to input the different parameters / coversion / correction factors to allow the EICAS to be used with alternative engine types depending whether it is fitted to a 757 or 767. In which case there would be no way you could control an aircraft by adjusting these parameters.

 

[Loki]

The EICAS system monitors things like engine speed, eng temp, oil temp, air temp and the fire warning system. The only reason I can think you would require software instalation is to input the different parameters / coversion / correction factors to allow the EICAS to be used with alternative engine types depending whether it is fitted to a 757 or 767. In which case there would be no way you could control an aircraft by adjusting these parameters.

lol we've all turned into aircraft engineering / electronics experts now

 

[WouldBe]

lol we've all turned into aircraft engineering / electronics experts now

What do you mean by that?
What do you think an Engine indication and crew alerting system does?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

(edit: This is not a response the to post directly above)

The EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) provides a 'potential data path' to the rest of the Flight Management Systems. In the diagram above it is refered to as the 'THURST Management Computer'.

Data acquisition and routing is often performed by a full-up EICAS because of its connectivity to a large number of aircraft systems. This connectivity provides a cost-effective architecture for data acquisition and routing.

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/products/cs/br/page1298.html

Not sure what 'full-up' refers to in this context, though. Any ideas?

It's a fairly irrelevant point anyway, as the central FCC is also 'software-loadable'.

I think the interesting thing in the stuff I quoted above is the allusion to 'hidden capabilities' inherent in the (FCC) hardware that can be unlocked at a future date via software.

One element of the FANS system is something called AIRLINE OPERATIONAL CONTROL DATA LINK.
The AOC link gives airline data systems the ability to transmit new routes, position reports, and updated winds through the data link network.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/fo02txt.html

The main selling point of FANS appears to be that by handing over control of the aircraft's speed to a computer , you can pack more aircraft into the same bit of sky because you don't have to allow for the human / conventional instrumentation error margin. For instance, you can allow aircraft to cross tracks at the same altitude safely without wasting fuel on an ascent / decent, as the FANS will calculate whether to speed or slow an aircraft (and do it automatically and efficiently) to avoid collision with an appropriate margin for safety.

Are you still maintaining that 'remote control' is technically impossible withing existing hardware?

At no point have I stated that the USG version is true.

With that in mind, can you tell me exactly which part of the USG version you have your doubts over? I think it might be good if we can establish some 'common ground' before I set about (possibly) demolishing some of my own arguments with some of the other bits and pieces I've discovered...

LOL @ Loki - I reckon we're all getting there.

 

[WouldBe]

Are you still maintaining that 'remote control' is technically impossible withing existing hardware?

Just to make clear I have at no point stated that remote control by any means is impossible.

Is it possible with existing hardware? Yes quite probably

Do I think it was used? No.

With that in mind, can you tell me exactly which part of the USG version you have your doubts over?

My main point of concern is wrt to the pentagon crash. If you believe the USG version this is the site of a commercial flight crash which as a result should be subject to a thorough crash investigation. So why, according to eye witness reports on the web, were red cross / salvation army volunteers amongst others allowed to walk in and around the crash site examining wreckage for themselves? Even more strange when you consider the potential 'top secret' documents that could be lying around from the pentagon offices.

 

[Jazzz]

Damn right! Anyone who's got an academic record is incapable of getting anything wrong, being dishonest or twisting the truth! Great logic bigfish!

I'll tell you what: you don't need a Doctorate to sniff out a highly suspicious story when it's served up conveniently bereft of any independent eye witness accounts and completely free of corroborative evidence.

This is utter chutzpah from the poster who once was attempting to silence debate over the physical details of the scene at Dr.Kelly death based on the qualifications of a government psychiatrist who was barely addressing the issues being debated.

bigfish has more logic in his left toenail than you have in your whole body...

 

[editor]

bigfish has more logic in his left toenail than you have in your whole body...

Back to the ad hominems again.

(sigh)