Remote control debunking.

[Bushwick Bill]

I hate to be the resident shill today for posting something from "9/11 miss," but I have always been kind of sucked in by the remote theory and I know the OCTers are gonna cream themselves over this.
http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

The author of this article argues that amateur pilots could not have flown the planes.
http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm

What say the pilots up in this mug?

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. So?

Same old strawmen.

Let's discredit all theories by picking out the most extreme example and then proving yourself right.

[BootinUp]

2. The 2nd link pooh poohs PC flight simulators

I must say he has no clue. There has been advanced FS software available for PC's for at least 10 years. Here is some info on the latest version of MS Flight simulator from a pilots perspective. People in the flight sim world take the software and associated hardware and accessories very seriously.


http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/fs2004_pilotsguide.asp


Real-World Pilot's Guide to Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight celebrates the centennial of powered flight, but it also includes many features and capabilities that make it an ideal complement to formal flight training and real-world flying. With Flight Simulator, you can fly to almost any airport in the world using navaids and airways or GPS, fly precision and non-precision approaches, communicate with ATC, deal with real-world weather from takeoff to touchdown, and review your performance with flight.analysis.

The wide variety of aircraft in Flight Simulator-from single-engine personal machines to jet transports-provide a range of experiences and challenges and give you the opportunity to learn about and practice using many types of avionics and instrument displays.

Many aviation professionals already use Flight Simulator as part of their training programs. For example, US Navy has set up a Flight Simulator lab to help student pilots (for more information, see https://wwwcfs.cnet.navy.mil/microsimptt/ and http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulator/fs2000_articles_usnavy1.asp).

FlightSafety International also incorporates a Microsoft Flight Simulator lab in its professional pilot training programs at the FlightSafety Academy in Vero Beach, FL.

Key Features for Pilots

* Jeppesen NavData database, including navaids (VOR, NDB, ILS), low- and high-altitude airways, intersections, approach lighting systems, etc. around the world.

* Nearly 24,000 airports worldwide. Airports include taxiway signs and markings, accurate lighting systems, beacons, etc.

* Interactive air traffic control (ATC), with traffic at most airports around the world (including non-towered airports), altitude changes en route, pop-up IFR clearances, precision and non-precision approaches to multiple runways, VFR flight-following, Class D transitions and Class B clearances.

* Dynamic weather system based on realistic atmospheric physics, with true three-dimensional clouds that form and dissipate, and automatic real-world weather updates (METARs and FDs) when you're connected to the Internet.

* Weather themes that generate a wide variety of stunning-and challenging-flying conditions with just a few clicks of a mouse.

* Interactive 3D "virtual" cockpits-tune radios and operate key aircraft controls and avionics by pointing and clicking in the virtual cockpit view.

* Garmin 500 and 295 series GPS with color moving maps and airport/facility information, GPS approaches, approach transitions, and more.

* Full-color map view with terrain display.

* Improved support for 3D graphics hardware acceleration in multiple windows and across multiple monitors.

* New and expanded lessons and ground school topics, including information from Rod Machado, John and Martha King, and Lane Wallace.

* Flight planner to create realistic VFR and IFR flight plans and navigation logs.

* Flight analysis to play back a flight on a moving map that shows ground track, key flight data, and a vertical profile.

* Instructor's station--link two PCs on a network or over the Internet so that an instructor can observe a Flight Simulator session, change weather, fail systems, and provide comments and help via a chat window.

* IFR training panels for selected aircraft that include all key instruments, avionics, and controls in one window for realistic IFR flights.

* Failures to test your ability to handle inoperative instruments, aircraft systems, avionics, and engines.

* Learning Center--a "Web site on the disc" available while the simulation is running that includes a Key Topics visual guide to the features in Microsoft Flight Simulator, direct links to flights and lessons, flight briefings, how-to procedures, aircraft handbooks, and more.

For a complete description of Flight Simulator 2004: A Century of Flight, see our Product Information section.

Flight Simulator as a Training Aid

You can learn more about how to use Flight Simulator to complement your flying in Flight Simulator as a Training Aid and in the Learning Center in Flight Simulator 2004. (On the Key Topics tab in the Learning Center, scroll down to the last row; the link is at the far left).

For Pilots by Pilots

Microsoft Flight Simulator is made by pilots for pilots. The team currently includes five flight instructors (one of whom is also an aeronautical engineer), and a total of about 15 pilots with a wide range of experience, certificates, and ratings. We fly everything from basic trainers and piston twins to high-performance aerobatic machines, gliders, jump planes, floatplanes, and helicopters. One of our instructors is also former airline pilot.

Each group within the Flight Simulator team-program management, development, test, business development, art, documentation--is led by or includes pilots. For an inside look at how we create Flight Simulator, see The Making of Flight Simulator. You may also want to check out Flight Sim, a documentary about flight simulation that premiered on the Discovery Wings channel in July 2003.

Aviation Partners

To create the realistic, detailed simulation that pilots and enthusiasts demand, the Flight Simulator team works with leading experts in aviation and training, including:

* Rod Machado, one of the most respected (and entertaining) instructors in the aviation community, is also the in-cockpit instructor in the lessons included with Flight Simulator. He describes the value of Flight Simulator 2004 to pilots and instructors in his "License to Learn" column in the August 2003 issue of AOPA Pilot. If you're an AOPA member, you can read the column online.

* John and Martha King of King Schools, Inc., the world's leading producer of aviation training videos and computer software, created a series of short videos included in the Learning Center to help novices and experienced aviators alike understand and use key features in Flight Simulator.

* Patty Wagstaff, one of the top aerobatic/airshow pilots flying today lent her aerobatic expertise to the simulation of the Extra 300S and the aerobatic lessons.

* Jeppesen, the world's leading supplier of aviation charts, training materials, and aviation services, provides its NavData database and has created SIMCharts, a set of departure, arrival, approach, and airport charts available on CD that matches the data in Flight Simulator 2004.

* AOPA, the world's largest pilot organization and publisher of AOPA Pilot and AOPA Flight Training magazines, provides valuable content from its archives. AOPA also offers special information to Flight Simulator aviators.

* Garmin, the leading manufacturer of GPS-based avionics, helped us create a detailed simulation of its 500 and 295 series navigation equipment for Flight Simulator 2004.

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. Flight Simulator Training is a strawman argument too. It doesn't

matter if They had a million hours worth of training on a simulator. Once you're sitting in that cockpit, it's a whole different story. Hey, my son has thousands of hours of driving experience in grand prix and nascar games with playstation, etc... That doesn't mean he can jump in car and take off around the track.

Just sayin'....

[BootinUp]

21. What you're saying is based on ignorance though.

Some sims are based on realistic physical models (flight models) and some are not.

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. based on realistic models...

That's what I'm saying, it doesn't matter how realistic it is. You know that you're safe, and if you mess up on the simulator, you're not going to fall out of the sky in a 767 and kill yourself and everyone else. But I guess if you were on your way to a suicide mission, that wouldn't really matter.

I've never flown a plane, I'm just speaking from my gut, but I'd be willing to bet there's a whole different set of emotions that go through your head when you get behind the controls of a real plane. It becomes the "real deal" then...

[BootinUp]

25. Putting aside fear,

Planes are flown by instruments primarily during the majority of a flight. If the flight model on a sim is accurate and the instrument control panel can be learned and the 3d world is modeled well, then it certainly is possible to rehearse a mission with waypoints and everything. Waypoints are the positions the plane should reach at certain times in the flight.

Once the plane was on descent toward a large visible object then you monitor airspeed and altitude and steer/turn based on sight. Steering a plane like that assuming you have learned the controls is not especially difficult, being a pilot (something that requires lots of skill and training) is not the same as steering a plane toward a building.

[wildbilln864]

3. what's the point?

Are you saying remote control of those planes was not possible?
That would be an ignorant position considering todays technology. We can remotely control rovers on Mars.

[Bushwick Bill]

4. I have no idea.

That's why I'm asking those in the know.

Although my point of this thread is to discuss this particular topic, I guess I find the attack dogs on more speculative issues like controlled demolition and remote control driving me back into the Thompson/Ahmed/Hopsicker/Ruppert non-scientific material.

[wildbilln864]

5. I found this to be interesting..

Bushwick. What do yas think?
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/remote-flying/software-only-allows-remote-control.txt">Click Here

snip/
"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. "

and/
"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"

[canetoad]

8. Great link wildbilln864

Thanks for posting.

[hack89]

12. You are kidding, right?

Unsubstantiated opinion from a CT vanity site is all you have? Care to expand your post with some actually facts and links?

[seemslikeadream]

6. 1984 technology

"Before the final flight on December 1, 1984, more then four years of effort passed trying to set-up final impact conditions considered survivable by the FAA. During those years while 14 flights with crews were flown the following major efforts were underway: NASA Dryden developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 to fly as a drone aircraft; General Electric installed and tested four degraders (one on each engine); and the FAA refined AMK (blending, testing, and fueling a full size aircraft). The 14 flights had 9 takeoffs, 13 landings and around 69 approaches, to about 150 feet above the prepared crash site, under remote control. "

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/CID/Small/index.html

[AZCat]

7. You really enjoy linking to that, don't you?

I'm glad I introduced you to this - it seems to have fascinated you for some time now. Have you ever watched the videos of the crash? I find the one that shows the in-plane bit particularly disturbing, seeing the dummies bounce around right before they are consumed by a wall of fire.

[seemslikeadream]

9. Actually it was reorg who first posted that to geek tragedy

in this thread but I see you were there too and yes I do find it quite interesting

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=19748#19947

[AZCat]

10. I think he got it from...

this post of mine, but I could be wrong.

I worked at a flight simulator company back during school and this was pretty well known by the instructors. The instructors there seemed fascinated by aircraft crashes (which makes sense to me) and this one was well documented.

Regardless, this was a complex enough experiment that I think it shows how advanced remote control was in the 1980's. More than control of the aircraft was being passed back and forth - NASA was worried about losing the onboard recorders so some data was piped back to receivers real-time. The plane was wired out the wazoo (a technical term) because in addition to testing the fuel additive, NASA was validating the software used to simulate aircraft impacts. This was also before the era of intelligent TCAS ( terrain collision avoidance systems)and ILS (instrument landing systems) so the plane had to have more input from the remote pilot than would be necessary today.

In my opinion, technology presents no barrier to the viability of the remote controlled plane theory. I don't subscribe to it, but I think it is possible to do.

[BootinUp]

13. Whoever said technology was a barrier to remote control?

That is the least of the the problems with a remote control theory. No, the sticky details are definitely in the rest of the scenario the who the when and the how of carrying out the plot. The author of the paper above has tried to show that, I only skimmed through it. Has someone posted such an outline that still needs to be shot down? It would be more fun to read one that is purported to be the way it was done. lol.

[wildbilln864]

18. Well of course those details...

if that's how it was done, would be hidden wouldn't they.
So you think it couldn't be done? That is funny indeed! lol.

[BootinUp]

20. Its a question of probability

not whether its possible. I am not in favor of investigating every unlikely event just because its possible in some parallel universe.

[rman]

11. It was possible in the 60's -

see Operation Northwoods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

...

"In response to a request for pretexts for military intervention by the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project (Col. Edward Lansdale), the document lists methods (with, in some cases, outline plans) the author believed would garner public and international support for US military intervention in Cuba. These are staged attacks purporting to be of Cuban origin, with a number of them having real casualties. Central to the plan was the use of "friendly Cubans"—Cuban exiles seeking to oust Fidel Castro.

The suggestions included:

...

Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."


It's even easier with today's technology.

[petgoat]

14. Raytheon landed a pilotless 727 6 times in New Mexico in 8/01

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=raytheon&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on

(Edited to restore references removed by DU because they were enclosed in square brackets)


October 2, 2001: Remote Controlled Passenger Airplane Flew Before 9/11, Despite Claims to the Contrary It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. {Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001}

Several Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights (see September 25, 2001). Earlier in the year, a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. {Independent Television News, 4/24/2001}

However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that “the technology is pretty much there” but still untried. {Observer, 9/16/2001}

An aviation-security expert at Jane’s Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs “in the realms of science fiction.” {Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001} Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research “new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.” {New York Times, 9/28/2001}

[hack89]

15. "It is reported"

where is it proved that it actually happened? Seems pretty flimsy to me.

[seemslikeadream]

16. post 6

please explain, am I missing something?

[hack89]

17. There is no question that drone aircraft exist ..

petgoat's post implies a system that allows a ground station to take over plane against the will of the pilots. A system that was designed into the flight control system. Separate issue.

There is no question that specially prepared drones could have been used in 911. The issue is that there is no proof that it accually happened and it still leaves one with a complicated scheme involving multiple plane swaps.

[petgoat]

22. Given that there's no proof that al Qaeda did 9/11

(except the dubious evidence of unauthenticated intelligence transcripts of
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's torture-tainted interviews and aleged videos of Osama's)
lack of proof should not be taken as dispositive.

[BootinUp]

23. Just that they recruited trained and equipped and planned

for terror attacks against the West for years, oh and all the announcements warning us of attacks. Other than that, nada.

[petgoat]

29. Given that the patsies went around making themselves

very conspicuous in the US, how do you know that the warnings
did not result from planted evidence and staged events?

[wildbilln864]

26. Why would...

there have to be that "complicated scheme involving multiple plane swaps" if indeed those planes with passengers were remotely flown into their targets by an operator elsewhere?

[hack89]

27. Once you can prove that a system exists ..

that allows a ground station to take over from a pilot against their will we can consider your theory. Right now it is nothing but unproven speculation.

And you also have to explain how the pilots were prevented from communicating with someone on the ground to call for help.

[wildbilln864]

28. Yes I see...

your point and I agree this is speculation. But it isn't far fetched speculation IMO considering today's technology. This type technology might also need to be kept secret. Possibly planes used in those drills were fitted with equipment for the drill to control some planes remotely. More speculation I know but that's all the government has forced us all to do by not doing an investigation that answers the many questions involved.
But isn't much of the official report unproven speculation also?

As to the point of explaining how the pilots were prevented. Well, were they prevented during that tragic day?

[BootinUp]

30. You guys are killin me.

I think I need a break.

[wildbilln864]

31. kicking for

exposure...