by Jim Heikkila
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:47
"The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts."
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
by Jim Heikkila
http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html
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.
[Google "Raytheon Global Hawk system"]
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. "
ViewZone
===============
medfly1@cox.net WROTE:
Mosely:
There is nothing anti-American or any attempt to smear America by having a debate over 9/11. In all my trips overseas I found people to be excited about America, its efficiency, its friendly people and its technology.
Nobody can prove nor disprove anything, nobody has any evidence here, all we go by is laws of physics, common sense, which is not that common sometimes, and trying to piece together something that makes sense from all the official statements made by the government and/or government officials.
We must keep an open mind and not be like the Germans when the fell for the Nazi's in 1933 and chastized anyone who opposed the Nazi rhetoric and dogma. We need to learn from the past to have a better future
---- Jon Moseley ruthercap@earthlink.net wrote:
One of the key problems here is that there are so many inconsistent and mutually-exclusive anti-American smear theories about 9/11.
This makes the debate fundamentally unfair. The conspiracy mongers want Jacob Roginsky to debate and disprove about 10 different theories. They are asking Jacob to tackle 10 different inconsistent and mutually-exclusive theories, and not one at a time either. Like most Leftists (I have lots of experience debating Leftists) the debate will keep shifting and tap-dancing around from one inconsistent scenario to another, at all times avoiding the truth. If there is anything that these conspiracy peddlers do not want is the truth. So when confronted with a strong argument, they simply bounce around among inconsistent theories to AVOID the truth, continually shifting the ground from which they are arguing.
In fact, Holmgren has already divided up his argument into two parts, again two completely inconsistent and mutually exclusive scenarios, that the government let it happen and alternately made it happen. There cannot be strong evidence of both, given that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive and inconsistent with each other. Thus the attempt to argue both at the same time is both an unfair, dirty trick as part of a debate, and an admission that NEITHER scenario can be proven with any degree of certainty. (Holmgreen would be arguing that XYZ *is* what happened if there were any actual evidence for it. Arguing two inconsistent theories is an admission that neither theory is supported by any persuasive evidence.)
Thus, the attempt to shfit the terms of debate to attempt to put the burden of proof on Jacob Roginsky. Admitting that the conspiracy peddlers cannot prove any of their (mutually exclusive) theories, they want to dodge the poverty of their position by placing the burden of proof on Jacob to prove the government's position.
So I don't know how Jacob can be expected to tackle, in effect, around 10 different opponents, making it 1 to 10.
The fact that the conspiracy peddlers assert "evidence" of numerous inconsistent and mutually-exclusive theories is itself evidence that NONE of them can possibly be true. The "evidence" that purports to show mutually-exclusive scenarios is evidence that none of the anti-American scenarios are supported by any meaningful evidence.
Jon Moseley
Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
by Jim Heikkila
http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html
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.
[Google "Raytheon Global Hawk system"]
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. "
ViewZone
===============
medfly1@cox.net WROTE:
Mosely:
There is nothing anti-American or any attempt to smear America by having a debate over 9/11. In all my trips overseas I found people to be excited about America, its efficiency, its friendly people and its technology.
Nobody can prove nor disprove anything, nobody has any evidence here, all we go by is laws of physics, common sense, which is not that common sometimes, and trying to piece together something that makes sense from all the official statements made by the government and/or government officials.
We must keep an open mind and not be like the Germans when the fell for the Nazi's in 1933 and chastized anyone who opposed the Nazi rhetoric and dogma. We need to learn from the past to have a better future
---- Jon Moseley ruthercap@earthlink.net wrote:
One of the key problems here is that there are so many inconsistent and mutually-exclusive anti-American smear theories about 9/11.
This makes the debate fundamentally unfair. The conspiracy mongers want Jacob Roginsky to debate and disprove about 10 different theories. They are asking Jacob to tackle 10 different inconsistent and mutually-exclusive theories, and not one at a time either. Like most Leftists (I have lots of experience debating Leftists) the debate will keep shifting and tap-dancing around from one inconsistent scenario to another, at all times avoiding the truth. If there is anything that these conspiracy peddlers do not want is the truth. So when confronted with a strong argument, they simply bounce around among inconsistent theories to AVOID the truth, continually shifting the ground from which they are arguing.
In fact, Holmgren has already divided up his argument into two parts, again two completely inconsistent and mutually exclusive scenarios, that the government let it happen and alternately made it happen. There cannot be strong evidence of both, given that the two scenarios are mutually exclusive and inconsistent with each other. Thus the attempt to argue both at the same time is both an unfair, dirty trick as part of a debate, and an admission that NEITHER scenario can be proven with any degree of certainty. (Holmgreen would be arguing that XYZ *is* what happened if there were any actual evidence for it. Arguing two inconsistent theories is an admission that neither theory is supported by any persuasive evidence.)
Thus, the attempt to shfit the terms of debate to attempt to put the burden of proof on Jacob Roginsky. Admitting that the conspiracy peddlers cannot prove any of their (mutually exclusive) theories, they want to dodge the poverty of their position by placing the burden of proof on Jacob to prove the government's position.
So I don't know how Jacob can be expected to tackle, in effect, around 10 different opponents, making it 1 to 10.
The fact that the conspiracy peddlers assert "evidence" of numerous inconsistent and mutually-exclusive theories is itself evidence that NONE of them can possibly be true. The "evidence" that purports to show mutually-exclusive scenarios is evidence that none of the anti-American scenarios are supported by any meaningful evidence.
Jon Moseley
Main Page -
Thursday, 07/13/06
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
