Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Colby and Lamson are such aeronautical experts, I want their

expert opinion on this:

According to the official story and map, Flight 77 descended

from several thousand feet quickly at top speed in a tight

circle with a RADIUS OF LESS THAN TWO MILES, and then

leveled out AT TOP SPEED for a 757 to treetop level before striking

the Pentagon with precision at the first floor without striking the lawn.

Based on their 757 jetliner expertise, I wish to know whether

Colby and Lamson agree with the official scenario as presented

in the map. Please cite Boeing performance statistics regarding

rate of descent at various speeds, and the turning radius possible

at top speed before the aircraft experiences structural failure.

I look forward to receiving all this information.

Jack

I have never claimed to be an aeronautical expert. Those are your words.

Of course I agree with the official story, and the points both Len and I have made in this regard are on this forum along with the relevant links. You want to find them I suggest you use the search function, if you know how.

If you missed it the first time around maybe you wil have better luck this time.

Len may be willing to repeat himself for the sorry likes of you, I will not.

I ask for expert answers, and all I get is tap dancing. Oh well,

at least you said you agreed with the official report, which is

said by experts to be aeronautically impossible. Maybe possible

for an F-16, but not a 757. Is that your final answer?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Stephen Turner

You are all over this Forum spreading doubt on analysis into the machinery behind the curtain of the Wizards of OZ. I think this is your job, not your 'belief'

Whoa, just a minute, you got any evidence to back this up? tell you what, if I was working for "The man" my M/O would be to post, and support the wildest C/Ts imaginable, its the oldest trick in the book, discredit by example. I have always found Len to be an able, and organised debater, but who, if the evidence presented is compelling enough, is willing to concede the point. Peter, if you have evidence that the technology exists to remotely fly these planes post it, but getting behind every crazy theory that floats down the river does our cause no end of damage, which really will make the spooks happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colby and Lamson are such aeronautical experts, I want their

expert opinion on this:

According to the official story and map, Flight 77 descended

from several thousand feet quickly at top speed in a tight

circle with a RADIUS OF LESS THAN TWO MILES, and then

leveled out AT TOP SPEED for a 757 to treetop level before striking

the Pentagon with precision at the first floor without striking the lawn.

Based on their 757 jetliner expertise, I wish to know whether

Colby and Lamson agree with the official scenario as presented

in the map. Please cite Boeing performance statistics regarding

rate of descent at various speeds, and the turning radius possible

at top speed before the aircraft experiences structural failure.

I look forward to receiving all this information.

Jack

I have never claimed to be an aeronautical expert. Those are your words.

Of course I agree with the official story, and the points both Len and I have made in this regard are on this forum along with the relevant links. You want to find them I suggest you use the search function, if you know how.

If you missed it the first time around maybe you wil have better luck this time.

Len may be willing to repeat himself for the sorry likes of you, I will not.

I ask for expert answers, and all I get is tap dancing. Oh well,

at least you said you agreed with the official report, which is

said by experts to be aeronautically impossible. Maybe possible

for an F-16, but not a 757. Is that your final answer?

Jack

Or course it is my final answer because I have seen, what your "experts" have to say. Problem is they are no more "experts" then I am.

So please bring them on if you must, but be prepared , once again, to see your "experts" debunked.

Hey, maybe you can give that smuck Costella a call, he seems to be an expert in EVERYTHING!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To avert further 'hijacking' of this thread I'm only replying here to relevant points. I started a new thread to respond to the rest of Peter and Jack's paranoid lunacy.

"I think the global view of the conspiracies we have been faced with are germaine here"

No this thread was started to look at a very specific aspect of the "inside job" conspiracy theory there are several other threads more appropriate for you to expound your beliefs. You are in effect hijacking this thread, maybe I should send in the ghosts of the passengers of flights 11, 175 and 77 to "beat" (you) to death with their carry on baggage"

"I really don't care to find the very good file I have on my computer about remote control of aircraft and Lufthansa having taken out the controls installed upon receipt of the planes."

Sounds sorta like the one that gotta away. Evidence you can't or for what ever reason don't produce is worthless. Such claims always lead me to believe the supposed evidence doesn't really exist or is inconclusive, my bet is that in this case it's the former rather than the latter, prove me wrong.

It's true (as I recently discovered) that Boeing was able to remotely control a specially altered 727 to take off and land just before 9/11. So presumably it could have been possible to retrofit other Boeing models but the questions such as how the hijack plane's could have been retrofit with anybody noticing and how communications would have been shut off remain. The article also indicates the system could be overridden. It also seems odd that would have announced this if the technology had been used on 9/11.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/specia...nt/1069559.html

Colby and Lamson are such aeronautical experts, I want their expert opinion on this:

According to the official story…and the turning radius possible at top speed before the aircraft experiences structural failure.

I look forward to receiving all this information.

Jack

Classic diversionary tactic, when you don't have any evidence to back your side of an argument (in this case the feasibility of remote control of 757s and 767s) change the subject! Peter also tried to do this.

Jack these issues have already been dealt with in another thread, I'll reply to you there. Now if you have any evidence that the hijack planes on 9/11 could have been remote controlled I'd love to hear it, see if you can site cites more authoritative than cannabis.com!

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila

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 where 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: RESPONSE

I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified "Privileged" Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified "Privileged" Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance.

Additionally, MOS33Q10 describes wire and/or transmitted data interplay, consistent with PIC (Pilot In Command) responsibilities of flight safety, as PIC is expressly required to KNOW that:

FAA certified pilots, expressly embodies the PIC with full responsibilities of all flight safety explicit ALSO, as a Licensed Radio Operator in accordance with FCC communication rules, critical concerns of electronic interference with flight critical systems, and other capabilities/limitations of electronic devices [Original Equipment or not] as part of total onboard equipment.

To include such knowledge necessary, concerning functionality and limitations of hand-held, non-amplified, standard private cellular phones, un-repeated through nonexistent equipment, not installed aboard commercial aircraft of the time. These purportedly "private" cellular calls MUST therefore be considered a hoax (not real).

Of utmost importance, so please publish and disseminate to all concerned:

I hereby challenge all other pilots, those who have accepted the gift of wings and a duty to their trusting passengers, for remaining silent before the ears of humanity pertaining to a dangerous delusion, and thus allowed to permeate that same humanity, concerning the skies over the eastern region of North America, September 11, 2001.

Because of this general silence, I can no longer accept these people as MY true brethren, nor the FAA as a legitimate regulatory body who's utmost concern has been "human safety", or so declared. That because of this ongoing silence (licensing body intimidation?), I hereby deny the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration to "Privilege" my right to command and enjoy the apparatus of flight. None-the-less, I retain my natural duty and responsibility to the safety of my person and passengers, including those otherwise bound to Earth.

I so challenge other pilots to consider the appropriateness of allowing an administration to "License" them as well, while in conflict with this overriding duty to human safety.

I so retain the FAA issued paper "proof" of my pilot training, and formal recognition as competent airman, merely as historical artifact. The "authorizing" seal and signature displayed on these artifacts, is no longer considered by me as lawfully valid, nor am I bound by the terms outlined through such a charter.

The first implicit duty of Pilot In Command (that of safety), remains unchanged.

To be absolutely clear, I will hold in contempt, any man or woman who considers themselves' "Pilot" for taking to the controls of air worthy machines, yet does not vocalize a clear stand upon such an underlying principal, that of a pilot dependent upon truth.

I do not recognize the justice of liars "owning" the sky, for one can not retain their wings soaring upon an air of untruth. This will merely ground all of humankind, and THAT is not my destiny.

A pilot,

Erin Sebastian Myers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila

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 where 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: RESPONSE

I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified "Privileged" Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified "Privileged" Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance.

Additionally, MOS33Q10 describes wire and/or transmitted data interplay, consistent with PIC (Pilot In Command) responsibilities of flight safety, as PIC is expressly required to KNOW that:

FAA certified pilots, expressly embodies the PIC with full responsibilities of all flight safety explicit ALSO, as a Licensed Radio Operator in accordance with FCC communication rules, critical concerns of electronic interference with flight critical systems, and other capabilities/limitations of electronic devices [Original Equipment or not] as part of total onboard equipment.

To include such knowledge necessary, concerning functionality and limitations of hand-held, non-amplified, standard private cellular phones, un-repeated through nonexistent equipment, not installed aboard commercial aircraft of the time. These purportedly "private" cellular calls MUST therefore be considered a hoax (not real).

Of utmost importance, so please publish and disseminate to all concerned:

I hereby challenge all other pilots, those who have accepted the gift of wings and a duty to their trusting passengers, for remaining silent before the ears of humanity pertaining to a dangerous delusion, and thus allowed to permeate that same humanity, concerning the skies over the eastern region of North America, September 11, 2001.

Because of this general silence, I can no longer accept these people as MY true brethren, nor the FAA as a legitimate regulatory body who's utmost concern has been "human safety", or so declared. That because of this ongoing silence (licensing body intimidation?), I hereby deny the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration to "Privilege" my right to command and enjoy the apparatus of flight. None-the-less, I retain my natural duty and responsibility to the safety of my person and passengers, including those otherwise bound to Earth.

I so challenge other pilots to consider the appropriateness of allowing an administration to "License" them as well, while in conflict with this overriding duty to human safety.

I so retain the FAA issued paper "proof" of my pilot training, and formal recognition as competent airman, merely as historical artifact. The "authorizing" seal and signature displayed on these artifacts, is no longer considered by me as lawfully valid, nor am I bound by the terms outlined through such a charter.

The first implicit duty of Pilot In Command (that of safety), remains unchanged.

To be absolutely clear, I will hold in contempt, any man or woman who considers themselves' "Pilot" for taking to the controls of air worthy machines, yet does not vocalize a clear stand upon such an underlying principal, that of a pilot dependent upon truth.

I do not recognize the justice of liars "owning" the sky, for one can not retain their wings soaring upon an air of untruth. This will merely ground all of humankind, and THAT is not my destiny.

A pilot,

Erin Sebastian Myers

Uh..no this "expert has it entirely backwards. The Boeing software flight concept is NOT to override the pilots commands in ANY situation. Airbus on the other hand takes the stance this "expert" claims applies to the Boeing jets.

Good grief you WILL believe anything as long at it fits your worldview. What a sheep!

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already reseached this BS because it came up on another forum.

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

by Jim Heikkila

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.

[…]

UPDATE: RESPONSE

I, a Military Occupational Skill 68G, and a Federal Aviation Administration Certified "Privileged" Pilot, as well as an FAA Certified "Privileged" Mechanic, will witness to the overall accuracy of this letter by Jim Heikkila; A testimony, pertaining to equipment (parameter limits both governed and ungoverned), discussing capabilities/limitations of flight control systems and structural performance.

Additionally, MOS33Q10 describes wire and/or transmitted data interplay, consistent with PIC (Pilot In Command) responsibilities of flight safety, as PIC is expressly required to KNOW that:

FAA certified pilots, expressly embodies the PIC with full responsibilities of all flight safety explicit ALSO, as a Licensed Radio Operator in accordance with FCC communication rules, critical concerns of electronic interference with flight critical systems, and other capabilities/limitations of electronic devices [Original Equipment or not] as part of total onboard equipment.

To include such knowledge necessary, concerning functionality and limitations of hand-held, non-amplified, standard private cellular phones, un-repeated through nonexistent equipment, not installed aboard commercial aircraft of the time. These purportedly "private" cellular calls MUST therefore be considered a hoax (not real).

Of utmost importance, so please publish and disseminate to all concerned:

I hereby challenge all other pilots, those who have accepted the gift of wings and a duty to their trusting passengers, for remaining silent before the ears of humanity pertaining to a dangerous delusion, and thus allowed to permeate that same humanity, concerning the skies over the eastern region of North America, September 11, 2001.

Because of this general silence, I can no longer accept these people as MY true brethren, nor the FAA as a legitimate regulatory body who's utmost concern has been "human safety", or so declared. That because of this ongoing silence (licensing body intimidation?), I hereby deny the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration to "Privilege" my right to command and enjoy the apparatus of flight. None-the-less, I retain my natural duty and responsibility to the safety of my person and passengers, including those otherwise bound to Earth.

I so challenge other pilots to consider the appropriateness of allowing an administration to "License" them as well, while in conflict with this overriding duty to human safety.

I so retain the FAA issued paper "proof" of my pilot training, and formal recognition as competent airman, merely as historical artifact. The "authorizing" seal and signature displayed on these artifacts, is no longer considered by me as lawfully valid, nor am I bound by the terms outlined through such a charter.

The first implicit duty of Pilot In Command (that of safety), remains unchanged.

To be absolutely clear, I will hold in contempt, any man or woman who considers themselves' "Pilot" for taking to the controls of air worthy machines, yet does not vocalize a clear stand upon such an underlying principal, that of a pilot dependent upon truth.

I do not recognize the justice of liars "owning" the sky, for one can not retain their wings soaring upon an air of untruth. This will merely ground all of humankind, and THAT is not my destiny.

A pilot,

Erin Sebastian Myers

Mr. Heikkila who isn't a pilot* just made this up. Mr. Myers who attests to its veracity is a private pilot only rated to fly single engine planes and thus he is not especially qualified to what a 757 is or isn't capable of any more that someone who holds an ordinary drivers license would be specially qualified to talk about the capabilities of Formula 1 racer or a tractor-trailer. Don't talk my word for it check the FAA database

https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/default.asp

I think the guy made the whole thing up, note that he doesn't cite a single source. Some of his errors.

"767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL"

BS Boeing ran tests in which they remote controlled a specially retrofit 727 note that he said ONLY 757 and 767 that had this capability. I have never heard of them running such tests on 757s or 767s let alone that they installed such capability on all models. If this were true he should have been able to cite a source.

"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."

More BS Airbus sets software limits on planes Boeing doesn't, but even Airbuses are capable of 2.5 G's

Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology

Should pilots or a computer have the ultimate control authority over a commercial jetliner as the plane approaches its design limits in an emergency?

Airline passengers can't see it, but this is the most significant difference between Boeing and Airbus planes.

Dramatic advancements in technology have made it possible for planes built by either manufacturer to be flown by computers from shortly after takeoff through the landing.

But Airbus has taken a much different philosophical approach to using computers than its rival. The European airplane maker designed its new fly-by-wire jets such as the A320 with built-in hard limits, or "protections."

[…]

The Boeing Co., on the other hand, believes pilots should have the ultimate say. On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.

"It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority."

[…]

And the computer won't allow the plane (an Airbus) to make any extreme maneuvers that would exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity.

[photo caption] "the pilot can't override the computer on the Airbus plane. Boeing believes pilots should be able to do that." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/boe202.shtml

On the Airbus airplanes, "hard" constraints have been programmed into the software. According to Airbus, these limits allow pilots to more consistently extract maximum available performance from the airplane, while minimizing the risk of over-controlling and possibly overstressing it.

Boeing's fly-by-wire B777, on the other hand, features "soft" limits. As the pilot approaches pre-set thresholds, aural and visual warnings are triggered, and control forces increase. If, as the saying goes, a pilot finds himself staring at a windscreen full of rocks, he can pull more than 2.5 Gs to avoid collision with terrain. He can pull 5 Gs, if that's what he believes it takes to avoid catastrophe.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/sia/19991101.htm

Incidents Prompt New Scrutiny of Airplane Software Glitches Wall Street Journal (05/30/06) P. A1; Michaels, Daniel; Pasztor, Andy

As a Malaysia Airlines jetliner cruised from Perth, Australia, to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, one evening last August, it suddenly took on a mind of its own and zoomed 3,000 feet upward.

The captain disconnected the autopilot and pointed the Boeing 777's nose down to avoid stalling, but was jerked into a steep dive. He throttled back sharply on both engines, trying to slow the plane. Instead, the jet raced into another climb. The crew eventually regained control and manually flew their 177 passengers safely back to Australia.

[…]

Soon after the incident, Boeing issued a safety alert advising that, in such circumstances, pilots should immediately disconnect the autopilot and might need to exert an unusually strong force on the controls for as long as two minutes to regain normal flight.

Free intro: http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114895279859065931.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

full article: http://64.226.131.145/discus/messages/1/2822.html?1149018014

An MD-11 pilot wrote the follow regarding Heikkila's claims:

"There's almost nothing in this blurb that is true. Just from the tone in which it was written, I can tell that the person who wrote it knows nothing about flying planes. If I had to guess, I would say that it was probably authored by a network reporter.

You can read my reply to "mik" earlier in this forum. In there I wrote that the automation on planes like the 75/76 is very sophisticated and can accomplish many things, but flying without a pilot is not one of them. There is absolutely no plane that can depart and land without a pilot. I don't know where this 1.5 g stuff came from, but if that's true then the Egyptair 767 would never have met it's fate."

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52714

Ray Hudson, Principal Engineer, Flight Control Systems for Boeing wrote the following to Jeff Rense

The anonymous writer does not know anything about commercial airplane design. (The author's name was not included in the version on Rense - Len)

[…]

The ONLY airplanes that have software-imposed HARD LIMITS on flight maneuvers are the A320, A330, and A340 series of Airbus airplanes. The design philosophy of Boeing in this area has ALWAYS been "soft limits" that the pilot can exceed given his/her discretion. Force deterrents on the control yoke are used to give the pilot a "hint" that they are exceeding the flight envelope. However, Boeing does NOT impose hard limits.

**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.

Incorrect. This is half-truth. Such limits ARE imposed on the AUTOPILOT. However, once the pilot disconnects the autopilot, the pilot has full maneuver authority within the MECHANICAL limits of the flight control actuation system.

I will not go any further, for the rest is ridiculous claptrap.

http://www.rense.com/general28/exceed.htm

Though his employer's name is not cited in the 'letter', as per Boeing company policy, his employement with the company can be confirmed here. He started working for them in the early 60's http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/september/i_milestones1.html

and here http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Security_Issues/gunsgunsguns.html

Boeing 757's and 767's can exceed 1.5g

"Any time the airplane is not in "zero-angle-of-bank" flight, lift created by the wings is not being fully applied against gravity, and more than 1 g will be required for level flight (figure 6). At bank angles greater than 67 degrees, level flight cannot be maintained within flight manual limits for a 2.5 g load factor (figure 7)."

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/fo/fo01/story.html

See also figure 7 which shows passenger jets capable of reaching 3 g's http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_03/fo/fo01/fig7.html

<H3 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">

"1.1 History of the Flight Canadian Airlines International (CAI) flight 48 (CDN48), a Boeing 767-375, departed Toronto, Ontario, at 1655 eastern standard time for Rome, Italy,… The aircraft touched down at 1941 Atlantic standard time (AST), 200 feet past the threshold, with a vertical acceleration of 2.2 g."

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1996/a96a0035/a96a0035.asp

</H3>This lengthy article discusses a crash avoidance system, I only skimmed it very briefly it compares 767s pulling up at 1.3 g and 1.5 g it doesn't say explicitly that the plane can exceed 1.5 g but it seems implicit

http://www.mit.edu/~jkkuchar/GPWS.pdf

"…Type:-Boeing 767-33AER

[…]

The pilot received an onboard wind shear alert about 5 seconds prior to touchdown, and the airplane touched down with a 1.8 G load on the main landing gear, followed 2 seconds later by a 2.8 G spike on the nose landing gear."

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19970522-2〈=en

"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. "

More BS officially only 2 CVR's were revovered. That of flight 93 was played for the family members and at the trial. The flight 77 recorder was reported found but to badly damaged to play NOT blank. This doesn't match the claim that 3 black boxes were found at Ground Zero either.

"I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist"

I doubt it, if a guy like that was part of the "truth" movement he would be more well known. The only references I found searching with Google and Dogpile to him being associated with the NSA were copies of the above 'article'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW another "article" that doesn't cite any sources! This one was needlessly long as well.

New Questions about remote control and 9-11

By Jerry Russell

British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.

Vialls who as far as I know was Australian decribed himself as a 'journalist' and 'private investigator' I've never seen it claimed that was any kind of engineer let alone an aeronautical one. He did not claim these credentials when he wrote about the 747 that exploded over Lockerbie. http://www.vialls.com/archives/trigger1.html Note that he begged for money on that page just like he begged for money on all the pages on his site, since aeronautical engineers earn high salaries this would be quite odd.

Let me quote from Vialls, who posted in October 2001:

In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, "Home Run" [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.

From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run's top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.

Vialls like every other CT who wrote about this couldn't cite any credible VERIFIABLE sources. Though it seems Boeing researched such a system there is no evidence it was implemented. The only article I could find on the subject says the system wasn't implemented (see link in previous post) and Boeing denied it was implemented. A Boeing engineer told me privately it didn't go beyond the research stage.

The following information was added to the Vialls web site, January 20, 2002:

Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control

In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement:-

"There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..."

Not quite so much a theory as might first appear. When I released the above report about "Home Run" remote control in October 2001, I mentioned that one European flag carrier was aware of the technology, though at that precise point in time I thought it prudent not to name the actual airline:-"As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetrate ion by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..."

The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task.

Von Buelow was never "Secretary of Defence" (sic) he held the post of Minister of Science and Technology until Oct. 1982 just about the time 767s were being introduced and before 757s were released. Lufthansa didn't acquire any 767s till 1994 and never operated 757s http://airfleets.net/flottecie/Lufthansa.htm . Their subsidiary Condor only acquired those models in the early 90's http://airfleets.net/flottecie/Condor.htm

On the other hand, Joe Vialls goes on to make some very absurd claims about this "Home Run" system. For example, that the system would require the Cockpit Voice Recorder to go blank. What kind of idiotic engineering team would design a system that would require the voice recorder go silent during the critical moments following a hijack attempt?

Furthermore, the idea that it would be necessary to "remove and replace the flight computers" doesn't make sense. Why not just change the software? One could imagine that the Americans could encrypt and encapsulate the computer so thoroughly that it could not be reverse engineered and the offending codes removed; but in that case, it would not be a matter of just replacing the computers, but also redesigning the entire flight control system from the ground up and completely testing it. This would be such a huge expense that it would be impossible to hide in the German budget. Anybody who takes Vialls' advice and asks this silly question to Von Buelow, is revealed as a fool.

A more thorough debunking of Vialls' writing is found at Eric Hufschmid's website, linked below. and there is also a time to stop shadowboxing with those who are only here to waste our energies.....IMHO

It is interesting that even other CTists don't find Vialls and Von Buelow credible.

Maybe you should start a thread that there was never an Axis nor Allied conspiracy to fight a War 1938-1945 Len.

??? No I'll leave such idiocy to you. There was no Axis conspiracy to fight WWII Hitler never hid his intentions.As to Allied conspiracy are you refering to Pearl harbor CTs? WWII started over 2 years before that. The war started in 1939 not 1938. Your tone is mocking as if I was denying that the World was round a bit arrogant for someone who hasn't offered ant credible evidence to support his theories

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "webfairy" is one of the least credible members of the "truth" movement. She pushes the theory that the Twin Towers weren't hit by planes but rather holographic projections that were blue screened into film and video (much of it broadcast live) of the 'impacts' or something like that.

Her site still has Holocaust denial and "the Jews did it" pages thought they are no longer linked to the main page, but that's another story!

Shall I find an ax murderer with your viewpoint and post his CV to discredit you? What kind of backhanded slanderous technique is this now Len, or whatever / whomever you are? That someone who is a bit nutty also believes in something does not discredit someone elses well considered sane evaluation of the same event. It was not wise for Jack to use something from that site, but he was getting a photo.... From a multitude of sources and person all around the world the official story of 911 holds NO water and there have been so many false-flag covert operations and conspiracies in the last 60 years [and before] only the blind can't see the value in a most jaundiced eye on the 'official' versions of anything beyond the time of day. Time for the nation and world to see this or perish soon at the hands of the hidden puppeteers.....and that is why I have NO patience for your false-flag skepticism IMHO.

I don't really get your point are you saying its not legitimate to question the reliability of a source? What if I cited the CIA or PNAC? I mention her views to discredit the photo not Jack's views. Finding an ax murderer who shared my views wouldn't be relevant but if I cited him as a source questioning his reliability would be.

Photos and videos as you undoubtably and Jack especially know can easily be faked. He asked if we thought it was real or not and I said why I though it was fake. I gave another namely that what is shown doesn't appear in other videos

"From a multitude of sources and person all around the world the official story of 911 holds NO water"

The World populationis about 6.5 billion there is no idea so lunatic that you can't get at leat 1 - 2 %of the population to believe it, that would still give you 65 - 130 million people who believe 9/11 was an "inside job" inevitably some of those people will be college professors and a handful former government officials. What the truth movement still lacks is people with relevant expertise to back their views. The only member of the trurh movement with credetials revelvant to his claims I know of is retired airline pilot Russ Whittenberg but he is contradicted by several experts including other airline pilots.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Peter.

If everyone will check the original posting, my question was "is the video

referred to REAL OR FAKE?"

I was not promoting it as either, but was looking for genuine opinions,

not nutty personal attacks.

The video exists. Dr. Fetzer sent it to me asking whether I thought it was

real or fake. My reply to him was it did not correspond to any other videos

of the event, but certainly COULD have been altered by any good

video technician by simple frame manipulation. My basic answer was

I DO NOT KNOW. It could only be proved by comparison with all other

films, or finding the ORIGINAL and showing how it was altered.

I have no opinion about THE WEBFAIRY site except that there is much

very good research on it. Unfortunately several good websites mix in

other research about Zionism which prejudices some against them.

I was not aware that the Webfairy site was one of these, but I know

of at least three others. This, however, should not detract from their

often excellent research.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Peter.

If everyone will check the original posting, my question was "is the video

referred to REAL OR FAKE?"

I was not promoting it as either, but was looking for genuine opinions,

not nutty personal attacks.

The video exists. Dr. Fetzer sent it to me asking whether I thought it was

real or fake. My reply to him was it did not correspond to any other videos

of the event, but certainly COULD have been altered by any good

video technician by simple frame manipulation. My basic answer was

I DO NOT KNOW. It could only be proved by comparison with all other

films, or finding the ORIGINAL and showing how it was altered.

I have no opinion about THE WEBFAIRY site except that there is much

very good research on it. Unfortunately several good websites mix in

other research about Zionism which prejudices some against them.

I was not aware that the Webfairy site was one of these, but I know

of at least three others. This, however, should not detract from their

often excellent research.

Jack

Jack I didn't attack anyone except "the webfairy" and frankly she deserved it. There was nothing 'nutty' about my coments. Interesting that you now say basiclly what i said, it doesn't correspond to any other videos.

Holocaust denial has nothing to do with being anit-Zionist this is the 2nd time that you have conflated these very seperate issues.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Len here, Jack. I find it disturbing that you are able to conflate "research on Zionism" with Holocaust denial. You do not object to "research on Zionism" (which includes Holocaust denial in your definition); your only issue is that it "prejudices some." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to amount to tacit approval of fraudulent Holocaust denial "research."

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Len here, Jack. I find it disturbing that you are able to conflate "research on Zionism" with Holocaust denial. You do not object to "research on Zionism" (which includes Holocaust denial in your definition); your only issue is that it "prejudices some." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this seems to amount to tacit approval of fraudulent Holocaust denial "research."

YES, I WILL CORRECT YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG.

I have never studied either Zionism nor holocaust denial in any detail

and have no opinion, except it is clear from evidence that the Nazis

killed a huge number of Jewish prisoners. I do not know how you can

accuse me of an opinion on this when I have no opinion and have not

studied it. This is typical of ascribing false motives or research to those

you disagree with to discredit them.

1. I think it is a mistake for JFK researchers to mix their in opinions

of any sort related to Judaism. I see no evidence of a connection.

2. I think it is a mistake for 911 researchers to mix their in opinions

of any sort related to Judaism. I see no evidence of a connection.

3. I have NO opinions regarding holocaust denial, Zionism, Mossad,

or other Jewish topics. I do not comment on things I have not studied,

like you and others do.

4. I am in favor of others studing the JEWISH CONNECTION, if any,

and reporting their conclusions. I do not put down anyone for

doing this, whether or not I agree. What I object to are those who

try to stretch a connection with things that are not connected.

If Zionists were behind the assassination of JFK, it is the best

kept secret in history.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, thanks for clarifying that in a satisfactory manner Jack. It just seemed that you were deliberately avoiding and/or confusing the issue. I wasn't interested in using this issue to discredit you because I dislike some aspect of your work; I just wanted to see it addressed, which you did.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

I have noticed that most threads in this section are about aspects of 911, remotely controlled planes, airforce defence stand down, controlled demolition of the three Towers etc, etc. I think a thread that allows members to lay out their own personel theory/belife on the subject is in order. I realise this is asking a lot, but it will allow us to debate the matter in the round, rather than in peicemeal fasion. For the record this is where I stand.

George Bush lied about what he witnessed that morning, twice, and I can prove it.

Most of the physical evidence supports the official version, ie four planes, three hits, 19 hijackers. I dont believe that a missile, or anything else other than a very large plane hit the pentagon, or that the Towers were destroyed by controlled demolition Two elements though do concern me, 1, I think that the suicide pilots were much more highly trained than we have been led to believe, the kind of training taught in the military. 2 The administration lied about being taken by surprise, in claiming that they had no idea about planes being used as flying bombs.

911 was used as a false justification to begin the ruinous war on terror, the invasion of Afganistan, and later Iraq had been the Neo Cons intention all along, 911 or no 911. Knowingly false documents and memo's were cobbled together to support this, Parliament, the UN and the Senate were told Lies and half truths, an anti Democratic measures, such as the patriot act were rushed though in its wake. Anti patriotic, and terrorist supporter labels were applied to anyone questioning this activity.

I dont believe that 911 was an inside job, as such, although real questions remain about how much foreknowledge certain agencies had about the event, and whether every thing possible was done to prevent it. I dont believe that Isreal, or Mossad had anything to do with it, indeed they were one of at least 25 countries to warn America about the very real possibility of terrorists hijacking planes, and flying them into biuldings, as part of a multi strike attack. Saudi Arabia is, in my view, a much more likely candidate, but of course we have already got their oil.

I will enlarge on these points if requested. your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...