FREE TAPATALK APP

Sizzler · 18th July 2008, 11:08 PM

A few months ago I tried to put together a "CD-possibility" hypothesis. I was attempting to demonstrate that CD-CT was at least possible. I however abandoned the hypothesis for the following reason:

(recap)

1. CD-CT depends on the the hijackers hitting the buildings, most likely at very precise locations.

2. Human hijackers are not dependable enough. If they failed to hijack the planes, or take control, or find their destination, or hit it in a precise manner, the conspiracy would have failed, perhaps leaving it vulnerable to detection. Human hijackers are too much of a gamble.

Therefore, any reasonable CT would need non-human hijackers, or guided technology. In my limited research (if you want to call it that) on the internet, I could not find anything remotely (excuse the pun) convincing.

Until now...

http://911blogger.com/node/16702

I certainly don't have the expertise to analyze this, but I'm sure some of you do. Let me know what you think.

Is the following statement incorrect?

Although this doesn't prove 9-11 was and inside job, it does offer one possible explanation for how the planes could have been precisely brought to their targets. (paraphrased from a poster on 9-11 blogger)

e^n · 18th July 2008, 11:52 PM

Hello Sizzler
There's nothing particularly impossible in the post at 911blogger, although I don't think they realise how the control surfaces in relatively older planes operate. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the pilots and manuevers involved were not spectacular and were well within the range of a poor to moderately skilled pilot.

For this reason, many alternatives are possible but all raise more questions than they answer. Did the pilots not notice these changes to their aircraft, were all the phone calls from the planes faked etc?

It's also worth bearing in mind the stated accuracy of WAAS

Quote:

The system demonstrated one to two meters horizontal accuracy and two to three meters vertical accuracy throughout the contiguous United States

This is probably not accurate enough. 3 metres is nearly an entire WTC floor and there are a few caveats to getting the accuracy they describe also.

R.Mackey · 19th July 2008, 12:32 AM

Fiction. No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements.

And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results.

This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.

Myriad · 19th July 2008, 06:48 AM

The guided landing systems operate through the plane's autopilot. But the aviation experts among us make a quite a cogent argument that there is no way for the autopilot to override the pilot's control on an airplane with hydraulic flight systems, without extensive modifications that would need extensive testing and could not go undetected by maintenance and flight crews.

Note that the one reference about overriding pilot control in the article is to a patent for the general idea, filed shortly after 9/11, no doubt inspired by wishful ("If only there had been a button that would...") thinking about the events. No evidence at all that such a system existed then or exists now.

(Do you think that the pilots' unions might not be pleased at the prospect of a system that, if it malfunctioned, could kill everyone on an otherwise perfectly sound aircraft by taking pilot control away? That years if not decades of testing and negotiation would be required to get such a system implemented? Engineers have been talking about automatic automobile driving systems since the 60's or earlier; 50 years later, would you want the first production model installed in your car?)

So, the guided planes would still need hijackers to take out the pilots and prevent anyone else from operating the controls, and the hijackers went to great effort (by far the most challenging part of their operation) to include trained suicide pilots in their number. Just in case the guided approach system didn't work, perhaps? Or if the hijackings were an inside job, perhaps there weren't enough trained pilots among the special forces willing to kill themselves for the sake of committing treason, so they relied on GPS guidance systems instead? Either way, supposedly this was to guarantee that the planes struck in the exact correct places relative to the pre-existing "wired" floors, so that a collapse could be caused that all the available science shows was inevitable, or at least extremely likely to happen anyway, from collision damage and fire. I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in all this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

ktesibios · 19th July 2008, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

(Do you think that the pilots' unions might not be pleased at the prospect of a system that, if it malfunctioned, could kill everyone on an otherwise perfectly sound aircraft by taking pilot control away? That years if not decades of testing and negotiation would be required to get such a system implemented? Engineers have been talking about automatic automobile driving systems since the 60's or earlier; 50 years later, would you want the first production model installed in your car?)

A most cogent insight. There are some other implications for the prospect of keeping such a system secret until you happen to need to crash airliners into a couple of buildings.

As Myriad points out, we're talking about a system which, if it failed, could reasonably be expected to cause a crash. In the regulatory environment airlines operate in, regular testing and maintenance of that system wouldn't be up to the airlines, it would be mandatory- as in "do this or you don't fly in the USA". To implement those inevitable regulations means that:

1. Specialized test equipment must be designed, tested, approved, manufactured and distributed to airline maintenance facilities.

2. Detailed test procedures must be written, approved, published and distributed.

3. Technicians must be trained and certified to carry out the work.

If that doesn't put enough people "in the know" to make keeping the remote-takeover system secret impossible, companies operating in heavily regulated industries commonly employ entire departments of people whose job is regulatory compliance- keeping up to date on the latest in law and regulation affecting their business and making sure their management knows exactly what they have to do to stay in compliance with the law.

So when the FAA directives concerning testing and maintenance of the auto-takeover system come down, you're going to wind up with a lot of paperpushers and lawyers and things knowing all about it.

This is not a good recipe for secrecy.

In addition, imagine that you have airplanes that can actually fly themselves safely home even without a pilot, and thwart a hijacker's ability to control them. Is that a feature you would want to keep secret?

I think not. You would, in fact, want to publicize the bejesus out of it- both to reassure the customers by letting them know that even if the entire flight crew is dead, they will still get safely back to the ground and to deter prospective hijackers by letting them know that they can't take the plane to anywhere it's not supposed to go.

It's no surprise that conspiracy fantasists are uniformly pretty clueless about technology. I do still wonder why it is that their fantasies are also so dramaturgically awful.

SaiGirl · 19th July 2008, 09:38 AM

MQ-1 PREDATOR
CENTAF Airpower Summary for April 9, 2007
Mission
The MQ-1 Predator is a medium-altitude, long-endurance, remotely piloted aircraft. The MQ-1's primary mission is interdiction and conducting armed reconnaissance against critical, perishable targets. When the MQ-1 is not actively pursuing its primary mission, it acts as the Joint Forces Air Component Commander-owned theater asset for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition in support of the Joint Forces commander.
Features
The MQ-1 Predator is a system, not just an aircraft. A fully operational system consists of four aircraft (with sensors), a ground control station, a Predator Primary Satellite Link, and approximately 55 personnel for deployed 24-hour operations.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122

Be sure to credit the source when you have copied and pasted information. If you re-read your Membership Agreement, you will see Rule 4: You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.

Posted By:LibraryLady

SaiGirl · 19th July 2008, 09:40 AM

The Global Hawk, a high-altitude, pilotless surveillance aircraft, was designed by Ryan Aeronautical, the same California company that provided Charles Lindbergh with the Spirit of St. Louis. Northrop Grumman acquired the company in 1999.
In April of this year, the Global Hawk made history itself. Piloted by an onboard computer, it rolled down the runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed 25 hours later in southern Australia without a hitch.
A special Kodak digital camera in Global Hawk's nose takes amazingly close-up, nearly real-time photos of the ground from high altitudes. From 56,000 feet, its video devices picked up fire extinguishers lying next to a parked F/A-18 fighter.

~enigma~ · 19th July 2008, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by SaiGirl

The Global Hawk, a high-altitude, pilotless surveillance aircraft, was designed by Ryan Aeronautical, the same California company that provided Charles Lindbergh with the Spirit of St. Louis. Northrop Grumman acquired the company in 1999.
In April of this year, the Global Hawk made history itself. Piloted by an onboard computer, it rolled down the runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed 25 hours later in southern Australia without a hitch.
A special Kodak digital camera in Global Hawk's nose takes amazingly close-up, nearly real-time photos of the ground from high altitudes. From 56,000 feet, its video devices picked up fire extinguishers lying next to a parked F/A-18 fighter.

So your claiming that the planes at the WTC were either global hawks or predators? I claim that I make Bill Gates look like a pauper...

pomeroo · 19th July 2008, 12:23 PM

Whenever a conspiracy liar recycles the remote-controlled bushwah, I feel obligated to pay tribute to Apathoid's splendid paper:

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

Although it is much shorter, fantasists avoid reading it with the same determination they display in avoiding reading Mackey's white paper.

Sizzler · 20th July 2008, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Fiction. No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements.

I guess it depends on what one designates requirements.

I personally think the system would have to override the pilot control, and guide the planes into their targets. I don't think +/- a few meters is unreasonable considering they can be landed with this kind of accuracy.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results.

I don't personally see this argument convincing. I think it is reasonable to assume that possible perps could engineer an event that would be flexible enough to deal with +/- a few meters.

WTC 1 and 2 were hit in very different locations. Both areas of damage responded in similar ways (no partial collapse upon impact) and the damage/fire, was limited to a few floors.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.

Well then. I guess I have been told

Sizzler · 20th July 2008, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

So, the guided planes would still need hijackers to take out the pilots and prevent anyone else from operating the controls, and the hijackers went to great effort (by far the most challenging part of their operation) to include trained suicide pilots in their number. Just in case the guided approach system didn't work, perhaps? Or if the hijackings were an inside job, perhaps there weren't enough trained pilots among the special forces willing to kill themselves for the sake of committing treason, so they relied on GPS guidance systems instead? Either way, supposedly this was to guarantee that the planes struck in the exact correct places relative to the pre-existing "wired" floors, so that a collapse could be caused that all the available science shows was inevitable, or at least extremely likely to happen anyway, from collision damage and fire. I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in all this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

This is hindsight though. Perhaps we know now, but the science (NIST, Bazant et al.) occurred after 9-11.

ps. could you bump the thread about your investigation suggestion. cheers.

Sizzler · 20th July 2008, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Whenever a conspiracy liar recycles the remote-controlled bushwah, I feel obligated to pay tribute to Apathoid's splendid paper:

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

Although it is much shorter, fantasists avoid reading it with the same determination they display in avoiding reading Mackey's white paper.

Link wasn't about remote control.

Foolmewunz · 20th July 2008, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Link wasn't about remote control.

Either it's been fixed or you are wrong. Try clicking again.

Sizzler · 20th July 2008, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Either it's been fixed or you are wrong. Try clicking again.

link is to GPS guided autopilot systems

~enigma~ · 20th July 2008, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

link is to GPS guided autopilot systems

Really? The title of the paper is "Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis". If you think it is wrong or not applicable, please show us all how.

fuelair · 20th July 2008, 10:07 AM

Are there guided (from a distance) planes? Certainly.
Is that related in the slightest way to the events of 9/11/01? Of course not!

Cl1mh4224rd · 20th July 2008, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

This is hindsight though. Perhaps we know now, but the science (NIST, Bazant et al.) occurred after 9-11.

You say that as if the results might have been different before 9/11. Or perhaps you're casting doubt about the results because that sort of investigation wasn't done before 9/11. I can't tell. Either one is pretty bad, though.

R.Mackey · 20th July 2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

I personally think the system would have to override the pilot control, and guide the planes into their targets. I don't think +/- a few meters is unreasonable considering they can be landed with this kind of accuracy.

And as I said in the other thread I linked, this is wrong. Do you know how AutoLand works? Do you know what would happen if you tried to use its radio positioning system at 400+ knots?

It wouldn't work, that's what.

In the other thread, I show the only reasonable way to do it with current technology. It's not easy and it doesn't involve ALS at all.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

I don't personally see this argument convincing. I think it is reasonable to assume that possible perps could engineer an event that would be flexible enough to deal with +/- a few meters.

Nope. The Purdue simulations prove that, with the exact same impact parameters, you get as much as 100% uncertainty in the number of core columns failed depending on the precise failure strain of the material. It's a very chaotic and unstable event.

Explosives, therefore, would have to work regardless of exactly how much damage occurred, or where exactly the plane hit. You therefore gain absolutely nothing by increasing the precision of the impact.

This is true even if we overlook the fact that no bombs went off at initiation. You might well recall that you tried, and failed, to come up with even a partial hypothesis of how explosives could result in the initiation behavior seen in both Towers. And that relaxes the absence of blast and shock in the audio and seismic record. And that relaxes the question of how they survived the fires. Etc.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

WTC 1 and 2 were hit in very different locations. Both areas of damage responded in similar ways (no partial collapse upon impact) and the damage/fire, was limited to a few floors.

Yup. And the structural modeling explains why. No bombs required. No precision impact required. QED.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Well then. I guess I have been told

You guess correctly.

pomeroo · 20th July 2008, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Link wasn't about remote control.

Gee, I'm going to have to disagree.

Sizzler · 20th July 2008, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

Really? The title of the paper is "Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis". If you think it is wrong or not applicable, please show us all how.

This is semantics. I withdraw my first comment.

Sizzler · 20th July 2008, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Gee, I'm going to have to disagree.

Yes. Semantics got the best of me. I withdraw my statement.

Sizzler · 21st July 2008, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

You say that as if the results might have been different before 9/11. Or perhaps you're casting doubt about the results because that sort of investigation wasn't done before 9/11. I can't tell. Either one is pretty bad, though.

I'm not implying either. My claim is that all known science that points to inevitable collapse was conducted after 9-11. In context with Myriad's post, possible perps would not have access to such studies, and thus, would not know that collapse would be inevitable.

pomeroo · 21st July 2008, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Yes. Semantics got the best of me. I withdraw my statement.

I appreciate your frankness. Now, tell us what Apathoid gets wrong.

Jonnyclueless · 21st July 2008, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by ~enigma~

So your claiming that the planes at the WTC were either global hawks or predators? I claim that I make Bill Gates look like a pauper...

Actually it was a hot air balloon (remote control of course, duh) which explains the melted steel too.

Jonnyclueless · 21st July 2008, 12:38 AM

Say, how about some kind of guidance system that relies on someone pointing a laser at the target?

Sizzler · 21st July 2008, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

And as I said in the other thread I linked, this is wrong. Do you know how AutoLand works? Do you know what would happen if you tried to use its radio positioning system at 400+ knots?

It wouldn't work, that's what.

In the other thread, I show the only reasonable way to do it with current technology. It's not easy and it doesn't involve ALS at all.

Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy?

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Nope. The Purdue simulations prove that, with the exact same impact parameters, you get as much as 100% uncertainty in the number of core columns failed depending on the precise failure strain of the material. It's a very chaotic and unstable event.

Still not convincing. I don't see why the upper floors and lower floors could'nt have been prepped for CD, leaving 4 floors (+/-) as the crash zone unprepped for CD. The upper rigging and lower rigging could have been independently set up. Thus, no wiring going through the crash zone.

Therefor the plane would have to hit the "crash zone", an area of about 4 floors. Who cares what happens within those 4 floors. Who cares which columns break. What is important is what is going to happen above and then below where the CD prep is.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

This is true even if we overlook the fact that no bombs went off at initiation. You might well recall that you tried, and failed, to come up with even a partial hypothesis of how explosives could result in the initiation behavior seen in both Towers. And that relaxes the absence of blast and shock in the audio and seismic record. And that relaxes the question of how they survived the fires. Etc.

Yes, well, this is a different matter all together.

funk de fino · 21st July 2008, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy?

If the planes are not fly by wire your theory is bunk. To override a manual input on a stick by a pilot would take major modifications.

1. Who would do this?
2. How would the maintenance crew and flight crew not notice this?
3. Why did the pilots never mention any of this in radio comms or CVR transcripts?
4. Why was there sounds of struggles with hijackers in CVR transcripts and also hijackers voices over the radio comms?

I would walk away from this one now if I were you, it is laughable.

Sizzler · 21st July 2008, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by funk de fino

If the planes are not fly by wire your theory is bunk. To override a manual input on a stick by a pilot would take major modifications.

1. Who would do this?
2. How would the maintenance crew and flight crew not notice this?
3. Why did the pilots never mention any of this in radio comms or CVR transcripts?
4. Why was there sounds of struggles with hijackers in CVR transcripts and also hijackers voices over the radio comms?

I would walk away from this one now if I were you, it is laughable.

What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)

pomeroo · 21st July 2008, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)

You could attempt to read Apathoid's paper.

X · 21st July 2008, 06:00 AM

Fly-by-wire is electronic controls, as opposed to manual controls.

i.e. control input activates servo mechanism to move control surfaces using electricity, instead of being directly connected to control surfaces by wire (mechanical link, think of bicycle brakes) or hydraulics.

The above information is off the top of my head, but I did a quick Google search for you.
Here's the Wikipedia page on it. You can read it or not, but it basically says the same thinkg I do.

funk de fino · 21st July 2008, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)

see post 29 and 30

gumboot · 21st July 2008, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

I'm not implying either. My claim is that all known science that points to inevitable collapse was conducted after 9-11. In context with Myriad's post, possible perps would not have access to such studies, and thus, would not know that collapse would be inevitable.

This is a texas sharpshooter fallacy. The perpetrators' access to studies re: building collapse is only relevant if it is the perpetrators' intentions to make the buildings collapse.

As you know, Al Qaeda are believed to be the perpetrators, and as you should know, Al Qaeda did not expect the buildings collapse.

The collapse of the buildings was therefore a bonus, rather than the intention of the attack.

This is a common 9/11 Conspiracy Theory error to make, because every alternate theory I have come across includes the perpetrators intending for the towers to collapse.

R.Mackey · 21st July 2008, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The technology you listed (belatedly, I've known of it for years, and was among the original proposers) is based on autopilot and autoland, the latter of which is dependent on ILS (Instrument Landing System). The Wikipedia articles on these are decent and worth your perusal.

So let's say we want 3 meter accuracy. Automatic landing can be thought of as a large control loop. The localizer beacons provide a position update to the flight computer, which arrives at a certain frequency and latency. This goes through the control laws, moves the control surfaces, the aircraft attitude changes, and the aircraft accelerates in response, acceleration changes its velocity and thus its position, and this results in a change in ILS, closing the loop. But all of these steps take time. The time depends on electronics, aircraft size and inertia, performance of airfoils and control surfaces, etc.

In order to get that 3 m accuracy, the timing has to be worked out such that the aircraft is stable, i.e. those delays are not so long that the aircraft can drift out of your 3 m goal box during that period, and doesn't have to accelerate so much that it won't have time to counteract that acceleration without overshooting. Control theory is all about stability.

Whether or not we are stable depends on how fast we are going. The ILS is designed to operate at about 180 knots. Our WTC attack aircraft, on the other hand, are going much faster -- call it twice as fast. The approach trajectory is basically a (hopefully, damped) oscillation around the ideal momentum vector. Since we've doubled our speed, our acceleration goes up by a factor of four (2 squared). So to stay on track, even assuming latency is minimal, we need four times as much control authority.

Adding latency into the equation, it is quite possible that autoland would no longer be stable at all. The data just wouldn't update fast enough, the control surfaces just wouldn't react quickly enough. The aircraft would start to deviate, overcorrect, be outside the stability box before it knew it, and then unrecoverably lurch off the glideslope.

If the control system is designed specifically to handle this, there are ways to fix it. What is done typically is to relax tolerances and integration times. Rather than overdrive the control system, we instead give the aircraft more time to average its position, more gentle control responses, all designed to keep it stable. This isn't too hard to do. But the accuracy suffers because you've deliberately relaxed your constraints. Since our needed acceleration is four times higher, we need four times the integration time, and typically the position accuracy will scale at least linearly. Where we had 3 meter accuracy at normal landing speeds, now we have 12 meter accuracy. Enough to hit a Tower, sure, but not nearly enough to pick your floor.

As I explained in the other thread, there are ways to do it. But they cannot depend on autoland. It just doesn't have the precision. Neither does GPS. The most available off-the-shelf analogue in my opinion is DSMAC. I'm pretty confident that it would work fine, but I'm also confident it would be quite laborious and expensive.

Originally Posted by Sizzler

Still not convincing. I don't see why the upper floors and lower floors could'nt have been prepped for CD, leaving 4 floors (+/-) as the crash zone unprepped for CD. The upper rigging and lower rigging could have been independently set up. Thus, no wiring going through the crash zone.

It sounds like what you're describing here is an approach where the aircraft impact and the explosives don't interact at all -- the explosives alone are enough to level the structure, and all the aircraft has to do is miss. I agree, this is relatively possible, although one can never discount the possibility of an unlucky fuel distribution gutting the floor with the explosives...

... but this hypothesis is a terrible match to what we saw. I'm not sure why one would bother, or why you brought it up in the first place.

Also, regarding fly-by-wire, as others have remarked fly-by-wire means controls are transmitted from the pilot station to the flight computer electronically, and from there go to transducers that work the control surfaces. In older aircraft, including 757 and 767's, the control is analogue. Think of a newer luxury car -- some of them have "throttle by wire," i.e. the gas pedal just generates an electronic signal, whereas older cars actually have a cable that opens the intake or restricts the carburetor.

Fly-by-wire is essential if you want to retrofit an aircraft to have this capability, or to override the pilot. In that case you need a custom flight computer, which is no picnic but theoretically doable. An older aircraft, like these, it would be extremely difficult to lock out the pilot without making the aircraft totally unflyable.

Conversions of non fly-by-wire to fly-by-wire are very rare and difficult as well. Among the few, some of my friends at NASA Dryden operate a heavily modified F-15 that was so converted, and it was a significant research project. I know what I'm talking about, and the airline techs and such who post here can give you an even more thorough explanation. But it shouldn't be necessary. The idea of remote control planes is totally ridiculous, and some yutz typing in an article from Aviation Week to impress his similarly ignorant Truth Movement buddies doesn't mean a damn thing.

AZCat · 21st July 2008, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Conversions of non fly-by-wire to fly-by-wire are very rare and difficult as well. Among the few, some of my friends at NASA Dryden operate a heavily modified F-15 that was so converted, and it was a significant research project. I know what I'm talking about, and the airline techs and such who post here can give you an even more thorough explanation. But it shouldn't be necessary. The idea of remote control planes is totally ridiculous, and some yutz typing in an article from Aviation Week to impress his similarly ignorant Truth Movement buddies doesn't mean a damn thing.

The only other conversion I know of was coincidentally also at Dryden - the famous CID. I think it is important to note though that the final(!) approach was quite a ways off the center line (although how far I haven't been able to find out quantitatively), but the managers decided to land the plane anyway.

R.Mackey · 21st July 2008, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by AZCat

The only other conversion I know of was coincidentally also at Dryden - the famous CID. I think it is important to note though that the final(!) approach was quite a ways off the center line (although how far I haven't been able to find out quantitatively), but the managers decided to land the plane anyway.

FSTCID Final Report

This is kind of a strange one. The aircraft (a ~~707~~ 720) was not converted to fly-by-wire in the usual sense, but instead had actuators placed in the cockpit, and those actuators controlled via radio. This illustrates the idiocy of the "remote control" idea, as I've brought up several times here and in my whitepaper.

I believe the decision to make the best of it after going off the glideslope was not made by management, but by the pilot. I think it was his call that the risk of trying and failing to recover and go around was greater than a partially successful test. But I never spoke to Mr. Fulton about it personally. He retired before my time. Other folks in the DFRC pilot's office might know.

ETA: Boeing 720, not a (similar) 707. Human minds are fallible, the written word endures! Read the report, it's interesting.

gumboot · 22nd July 2008, 02:20 AM

Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is?

LashL · 22nd July 2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is?

Yes.

pomeroo · 22nd July 2008, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is?

Oh, yeah? A couple of appearances on 'Hardfire' will take care of that.

SaiGirl · 22nd July 2008, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

\
No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements.
And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results.
This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.

The Purdue Simulation is just that:
An attempt to visually simulate the physics of a plane crashing into a Tower.
The Tower is made of steel columns, girders, beams, and rebar reinforced concrete.
The Boeing plane is a hollow basket of mostly aluminum with a fiberglass nosecone.

It would be like a beer can crashing into a concrete and steel barbecue pit.
The pilot's cabin would crumple and be shoved back into 2nd class.
Material density differential between the plane and the Tower that is orders of magnitude.
A simple matter of materials science and basic Newton.

The Purdue Simulation is a joke. A cartoon.
Watch it again.
In fact, please post it here so we can all watch it again and enjoy its whimsicality.

R.Mackey · 22nd July 2008, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by SaiGirl

The Purdue Simulation is a joke. A cartoon.
Watch it again.
In fact, please post it here so we can all watch it again and enjoy its whimsicality.

I'm meant to be impressed by some nobody, claiming work from one of the better engineering universities in the world is a "joke," based on such a flimsy beer can analogy?

I gravely doubt you even understand their conclusions. Heck, I doubt you've read even one of their papers.

18th July 2008, 11:08 PM	#1
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Guided Planes: Fact or Fiction? A few months ago I tried to put together a "CD-possibility" hypothesis. I was attempting to demonstrate that CD-CT was at least possible. I however abandoned the hypothesis for the following reason: (recap) 1. CD-CT depends on the the hijackers hitting the buildings, most likely at very precise locations. 2. Human hijackers are not dependable enough. If they failed to hijack the planes, or take control, or find their destination, or hit it in a precise manner, the conspiracy would have failed, perhaps leaving it vulnerable to detection. Human hijackers are too much of a gamble. Therefore, any reasonable CT would need non-human hijackers, or guided technology. In my limited research (if you want to call it that) on the internet, I could not find anything remotely (excuse the pun) convincing. Until now... http://911blogger.com/node/16702 I certainly don't have the expertise to analyze this, but I'm sure some of you do. Let me know what you think. Is the following statement incorrect? Although this doesn't prove 9-11 was and inside job, it does offer one possible explanation for how the planes could have been precisely brought to their targets. (paraphrased from a poster on 9-11 blogger)
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

18th July 2008, 11:52 PM	#2
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	Hello Sizzler There's nothing particularly impossible in the post at 911blogger, although I don't think they realise how the control surfaces in relatively older planes operate. The problem with this line of reasoning is that the pilots and manuevers involved were not spectacular and were well within the range of a poor to moderately skilled pilot. For this reason, many alternatives are possible but all raise more questions than they answer. Did the pilots not notice these changes to their aircraft, were all the phone calls from the planes faked etc? It's also worth bearing in mind the stated accuracy of WAAS Quote: The system demonstrated one to two meters horizontal accuracy and two to three meters vertical accuracy throughout the contiguous United States This is probably not accurate enough. 3 metres is nearly an entire WTC floor and there are a few caveats to getting the accuracy they describe also.
e^n Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 810	__________________ Conspiracy Theorist Correspondent, Panic Watch!

19th July 2008, 12:32 AM	#3
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Fiction. No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements. And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results. This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

19th July 2008, 06:48 AM	#4
Myriad Hyperthetical Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,218	The guided landing systems operate through the plane's autopilot. But the aviation experts among us make a quite a cogent argument that there is no way for the autopilot to override the pilot's control on an airplane with hydraulic flight systems, without extensive modifications that would need extensive testing and could not go undetected by maintenance and flight crews. Note that the one reference about overriding pilot control in the article is to a patent for the general idea, filed shortly after 9/11, no doubt inspired by wishful ("If only there had been a button that would...") thinking about the events. No evidence at all that such a system existed then or exists now. (Do you think that the pilots' unions might not be pleased at the prospect of a system that, if it malfunctioned, could kill everyone on an otherwise perfectly sound aircraft by taking pilot control away? That years if not decades of testing and negotiation would be required to get such a system implemented? Engineers have been talking about automatic automobile driving systems since the 60's or earlier; 50 years later, would you want the first production model installed in your car?) So, the guided planes would still need hijackers to take out the pilots and prevent anyone else from operating the controls, and the hijackers went to great effort (by far the most challenging part of their operation) to include trained suicide pilots in their number. Just in case the guided approach system didn't work, perhaps? Or if the hijackings were an inside job, perhaps there weren't enough trained pilots among the special forces willing to kill themselves for the sake of committing treason, so they relied on GPS guidance systems instead? Either way, supposedly this was to guarantee that the planes struck in the exact correct places relative to the pre-existing "wired" floors, so that a collapse could be caused that all the available science shows was inevitable, or at least extremely likely to happen anyway, from collision damage and fire. I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in all this. Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ The cosmos is a vast Loom, with time the warp and space the weft. We are all fruit of the Loom, unaware.

19th July 2008, 09:20 AM	#5
ktesibios Worthless Aging Hippie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,493	Originally Posted by Myriad (Do you think that the pilots' unions might not be pleased at the prospect of a system that, if it malfunctioned, could kill everyone on an otherwise perfectly sound aircraft by taking pilot control away? That years if not decades of testing and negotiation would be required to get such a system implemented? Engineers have been talking about automatic automobile driving systems since the 60's or earlier; 50 years later, would you want the first production model installed in your car?) A most cogent insight. There are some other implications for the prospect of keeping such a system secret until you happen to need to crash airliners into a couple of buildings. As Myriad points out, we're talking about a system which, if it failed, could reasonably be expected to cause a crash. In the regulatory environment airlines operate in, regular testing and maintenance of that system wouldn't be up to the airlines, it would be mandatory- as in "do this or you don't fly in the USA". To implement those inevitable regulations means that: 1. Specialized test equipment must be designed, tested, approved, manufactured and distributed to airline maintenance facilities. 2. Detailed test procedures must be written, approved, published and distributed. 3. Technicians must be trained and certified to carry out the work. If that doesn't put enough people "in the know" to make keeping the remote-takeover system secret impossible, companies operating in heavily regulated industries commonly employ entire departments of people whose job is regulatory compliance- keeping up to date on the latest in law and regulation affecting their business and making sure their management knows exactly what they have to do to stay in compliance with the law. So when the FAA directives concerning testing and maintenance of the auto-takeover system come down, you're going to wind up with a lot of paperpushers and lawyers and things knowing all about it. This is not a good recipe for secrecy. In addition, imagine that you have airplanes that can actually fly themselves safely home even without a pilot, and thwart a hijacker's ability to control them. Is that a feature you would want to keep secret? I think not. You would, in fact, want to publicize the bejesus out of it- both to reassure the customers by letting them know that even if the entire flight crew is dead, they will still get safely back to the ground and to deter prospective hijackers by letting them know that they can't take the plane to anywhere it's not supposed to go. It's no surprise that conspiracy fantasists are uniformly pretty clueless about technology. I do still wonder why it is that their fantasies are also so dramaturgically awful.
	__________________ Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

19th July 2008, 09:40 AM	#7
SaiGirl New Blood Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 19	The Global Hawk, a high-altitude, pilotless surveillance aircraft, was designed by Ryan Aeronautical, the same California company that provided Charles Lindbergh with the Spirit of St. Louis. Northrop Grumman acquired the company in 1999. In April of this year, the Global Hawk made history itself. Piloted by an onboard computer, it rolled down the runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed 25 hours later in southern Australia without a hitch. A special Kodak digital camera in Global Hawk's nose takes amazingly close-up, nearly real-time photos of the ground from high altitudes. From 56,000 feet, its video devices picked up fire extinguishers lying next to a parked F/A-18 fighter.
SaiGirl New Blood Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 19

19th July 2008, 09:44 AM	#8
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by SaiGirl The Global Hawk, a high-altitude, pilotless surveillance aircraft, was designed by Ryan Aeronautical, the same California company that provided Charles Lindbergh with the Spirit of St. Louis. Northrop Grumman acquired the company in 1999. In April of this year, the Global Hawk made history itself. Piloted by an onboard computer, it rolled down the runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed 25 hours later in southern Australia without a hitch. A special Kodak digital camera in Global Hawk's nose takes amazingly close-up, nearly real-time photos of the ground from high altitudes. From 56,000 feet, its video devices picked up fire extinguishers lying next to a parked F/A-18 fighter. So your claiming that the planes at the WTC were either global hawks or predators? I claim that I make Bill Gates look like a pauper...

19th July 2008, 12:23 PM	#9
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Whenever a conspiracy liar recycles the remote-controlled bushwah, I feel obligated to pay tribute to Apathoid's splendid paper: http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf Although it is much shorter, fantasists avoid reading it with the same determination they display in avoiding reading Mackey's white paper.

20th July 2008, 03:56 AM	#10
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by R.Mackey Fiction. No system then available, and none today, would meet the requirements. I guess it depends on what one designates requirements. I personally think the system would have to override the pilot control, and guide the planes into their targets. I don't think +/- a few meters is unreasonable considering they can be landed with this kind of accuracy. Originally Posted by R.Mackey And even with a system (one that no pilot or maintainer could detect) that could hit its target at those speeds and with millimeter accuracy, you still can't coordinate the attack. Uncertainties in where furniture is, or the precise failure strain of materials, is enough to radically change the damage path. See the Purdue results. I don't personally see this argument convincing. I think it is reasonable to assume that possible perps could engineer an event that would be flexible enough to deal with +/- a few meters. WTC 1 and 2 were hit in very different locations. Both areas of damage responded in similar ways (no partial collapse upon impact) and the damage/fire, was limited to a few floors. Originally Posted by R.Mackey This line of reasoning is absolutely idiotic. Well then. I guess I have been told
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

20th July 2008, 04:07 AM	#11
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by Myriad So, the guided planes would still need hijackers to take out the pilots and prevent anyone else from operating the controls, and the hijackers went to great effort (by far the most challenging part of their operation) to include trained suicide pilots in their number. Just in case the guided approach system didn't work, perhaps? Or if the hijackings were an inside job, perhaps there weren't enough trained pilots among the special forces willing to kill themselves for the sake of committing treason, so they relied on GPS guidance systems instead? Either way, supposedly this was to guarantee that the planes struck in the exact correct places relative to the pre-existing "wired" floors, so that a collapse could be caused that all the available science shows was inevitable, or at least extremely likely to happen anyway, from collision damage and fire. I'm not seeing a plausible scenario in all this. Respectfully, Myriad This is hindsight though. Perhaps we know now, but the science (NIST, Bazant et al.) occurred after 9-11. ps. could you bump the thread about your investigation suggestion. cheers.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Last edited by Sizzler; 20th July 2008 at 04:12 AM.

20th July 2008, 04:09 AM	#12
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by pomeroo Whenever a conspiracy liar recycles the remote-controlled bushwah, I feel obligated to pay tribute to Apathoid's splendid paper: http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf Although it is much shorter, fantasists avoid reading it with the same determination they display in avoiding reading Mackey's white paper. Link wasn't about remote control.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

20th July 2008, 04:55 AM	#13
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,870	Originally Posted by Sizzler Link wasn't about remote control. Either it's been fixed or you are wrong. Try clicking again.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

20th July 2008, 07:38 AM	#14
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Either it's been fixed or you are wrong. Try clicking again. link is to GPS guided autopilot systems
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

20th July 2008, 07:42 AM	#15
~enigma~ Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Center of the universe Posts: 7,954	Originally Posted by Sizzler link is to GPS guided autopilot systems Really? The title of the paper is "Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis". If you think it is wrong or not applicable, please show us all how.

20th July 2008, 10:07 AM	#16
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	Are there guided (from a distance) planes? Certainly. Is that related in the slightest way to the events of 9/11/01? Of course not!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	Last edited by fuelair; 20th July 2008 at 10:07 AM. Reason: +t

20th July 2008, 10:39 AM	#17
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by Sizzler This is hindsight though. Perhaps we know now, but the science (NIST, Bazant et al.) occurred after 9-11. You say that as if the results might have been different before 9/11. Or perhaps you're casting doubt about the results because that sort of investigation wasn't done before 9/11. I can't tell. Either one is pretty bad, though.
	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 20th July 2008 at 10:40 AM.

20th July 2008, 01:02 PM	#18
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Sizzler I personally think the system would have to override the pilot control, and guide the planes into their targets. I don't think +/- a few meters is unreasonable considering they can be landed with this kind of accuracy. And as I said in the other thread I linked, this is wrong. Do you know how AutoLand works? Do you know what would happen if you tried to use its radio positioning system at 400+ knots? It wouldn't work, that's what. In the other thread, I show the only reasonable way to do it with current technology. It's not easy and it doesn't involve ALS at all. Originally Posted by Sizzler I don't personally see this argument convincing. I think it is reasonable to assume that possible perps could engineer an event that would be flexible enough to deal with +/- a few meters. Nope. The Purdue simulations prove that, with the exact same impact parameters, you get as much as 100% uncertainty in the number of core columns failed depending on the precise failure strain of the material. It's a very chaotic and unstable event. Explosives, therefore, would have to work regardless of exactly how much damage occurred, or where exactly the plane hit. You therefore gain absolutely nothing by increasing the precision of the impact. This is true even if we overlook the fact that no bombs went off at initiation. You might well recall that you tried, and failed, to come up with even a partial hypothesis of how explosives could result in the initiation behavior seen in both Towers. And that relaxes the absence of blast and shock in the audio and seismic record. And that relaxes the question of how they survived the fires. Etc. Originally Posted by Sizzler WTC 1 and 2 were hit in very different locations. Both areas of damage responded in similar ways (no partial collapse upon impact) and the damage/fire, was limited to a few floors. Yup. And the structural modeling explains why. No bombs required. No precision impact required. QED. Originally Posted by Sizzler Well then. I guess I have been told You guess correctly.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

20th July 2008, 01:43 PM	#19
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Sizzler Link wasn't about remote control. Gee, I'm going to have to disagree.

20th July 2008, 11:58 PM	#20
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ Really? The title of the paper is "Remote Takeover on 9/11: A Critical Analysis". If you think it is wrong or not applicable, please show us all how. This is semantics. I withdraw my first comment.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

20th July 2008, 11:59 PM	#21
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by pomeroo Gee, I'm going to have to disagree. Yes. Semantics got the best of me. I withdraw my statement.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

21st July 2008, 12:03 AM	#22
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd You say that as if the results might have been different before 9/11. Or perhaps you're casting doubt about the results because that sort of investigation wasn't done before 9/11. I can't tell. Either one is pretty bad, though. I'm not implying either. My claim is that all known science that points to inevitable collapse was conducted after 9-11. In context with Myriad's post, possible perps would not have access to such studies, and thus, would not know that collapse would be inevitable.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

21st July 2008, 12:17 AM	#23
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Sizzler Yes. Semantics got the best of me. I withdraw my statement. I appreciate your frankness. Now, tell us what Apathoid gets wrong.

21st July 2008, 12:37 AM	#24
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	Originally Posted by ~enigma~ So your claiming that the planes at the WTC were either global hawks or predators? I claim that I make Bill Gates look like a pauper... Actually it was a hot air balloon (remote control of course, duh) which explains the melted steel too.

21st July 2008, 12:38 AM	#25
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	Say, how about some kind of guidance system that relies on someone pointing a laser at the target?

21st July 2008, 12:47 AM	#26
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by R.Mackey And as I said in the other thread I linked, this is wrong. Do you know how AutoLand works? Do you know what would happen if you tried to use its radio positioning system at 400+ knots? It wouldn't work, that's what. In the other thread, I show the only reasonable way to do it with current technology. It's not easy and it doesn't involve ALS at all. Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy? Originally Posted by R.Mackey Nope. The Purdue simulations prove that, with the exact same impact parameters, you get as much as 100% uncertainty in the number of core columns failed depending on the precise failure strain of the material. It's a very chaotic and unstable event. Still not convincing. I don't see why the upper floors and lower floors could'nt have been prepped for CD, leaving 4 floors (+/-) as the crash zone unprepped for CD. The upper rigging and lower rigging could have been independently set up. Thus, no wiring going through the crash zone. Therefor the plane would have to hit the "crash zone", an area of about 4 floors. Who cares what happens within those 4 floors. Who cares which columns break. What is important is what is going to happen above and then below where the CD prep is. Originally Posted by R.Mackey This is true even if we overlook the fact that no bombs went off at initiation. You might well recall that you tried, and failed, to come up with even a partial hypothesis of how explosives could result in the initiation behavior seen in both Towers. And that relaxes the absence of blast and shock in the audio and seismic record. And that relaxes the question of how they survived the fires. Etc. Yes, well, this is a different matter all together.
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Last edited by Sizzler; 21st July 2008 at 12:49 AM.

21st July 2008, 02:01 AM	#27
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by Sizzler Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy? If the planes are not fly by wire your theory is bunk. To override a manual input on a stick by a pilot would take major modifications. 1. Who would do this? 2. How would the maintenance crew and flight crew not notice this? 3. Why did the pilots never mention any of this in radio comms or CVR transcripts? 4. Why was there sounds of struggles with hijackers in CVR transcripts and also hijackers voices over the radio comms? I would walk away from this one now if I were you, it is laughable.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

21st July 2008, 04:03 AM	#28
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562	Originally Posted by funk de fino If the planes are not fly by wire your theory is bunk. To override a manual input on a stick by a pilot would take major modifications. 1. Who would do this? 2. How would the maintenance crew and flight crew not notice this? 3. Why did the pilots never mention any of this in radio comms or CVR transcripts? 4. Why was there sounds of struggles with hijackers in CVR transcripts and also hijackers voices over the radio comms? I would walk away from this one now if I were you, it is laughable. What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post)
Sizzler Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,562

21st July 2008, 04:14 AM	#29
pomeroo Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: In a Little Cafe Just the Other Side of the Border Posts: 7,091	Originally Posted by Sizzler What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post) You could attempt to read Apathoid's paper.

21st July 2008, 06:00 AM	#30
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,087	Fly-by-wire is electronic controls, as opposed to manual controls. i.e. control input activates servo mechanism to move control surfaces using electricity, instead of being directly connected to control surfaces by wire (mechanical link, think of bicycle brakes) or hydraulics. The above information is off the top of my head, but I did a quick Google search for you. Here's the Wikipedia page on it. You can read it or not, but it basically says the same thinkg I do.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

21st July 2008, 06:20 AM	#31
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,813	Originally Posted by Sizzler What is fly by wire? (not ignoring the rest of your post) see post 29 and 30
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

21st July 2008, 07:22 AM	#32
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,188	Originally Posted by Sizzler I'm not implying either. My claim is that all known science that points to inevitable collapse was conducted after 9-11. In context with Myriad's post, possible perps would not have access to such studies, and thus, would not know that collapse would be inevitable. This is a texas sharpshooter fallacy. The perpetrators' access to studies re: building collapse is only relevant if it is the perpetrators' intentions to make the buildings collapse. As you know, Al Qaeda are believed to be the perpetrators, and as you should know, Al Qaeda did not expect the buildings collapse. The collapse of the buildings was therefore a bonus, rather than the intention of the attack. This is a common 9/11 Conspiracy Theory error to make, because every alternate theory I have come across includes the perpetrators intending for the towers to collapse.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. Last edited by gumboot; 21st July 2008 at 07:23 AM.

21st July 2008, 09:12 PM	#33
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Sizzler Are you saying using the technology listed in the link I provided that it would be impossible to guide a plane into a WTC building with +/- 3 meters accuracy? That's exactly what I'm saying. The technology you listed (belatedly, I've known of it for years, and was among the original proposers) is based on autopilot and autoland, the latter of which is dependent on ILS (Instrument Landing System). The Wikipedia articles on these are decent and worth your perusal. So let's say we want 3 meter accuracy. Automatic landing can be thought of as a large control loop. The localizer beacons provide a position update to the flight computer, which arrives at a certain frequency and latency. This goes through the control laws, moves the control surfaces, the aircraft attitude changes, and the aircraft accelerates in response, acceleration changes its velocity and thus its position, and this results in a change in ILS, closing the loop. But all of these steps take time. The time depends on electronics, aircraft size and inertia, performance of airfoils and control surfaces, etc. In order to get that 3 m accuracy, the timing has to be worked out such that the aircraft is stable, i.e. those delays are not so long that the aircraft can drift out of your 3 m goal box during that period, and doesn't have to accelerate so much that it won't have time to counteract that acceleration without overshooting. Control theory is all about stability. Whether or not we are stable depends on how fast we are going. The ILS is designed to operate at about 180 knots. Our WTC attack aircraft, on the other hand, are going much faster -- call it twice as fast. The approach trajectory is basically a (hopefully, damped) oscillation around the ideal momentum vector. Since we've doubled our speed, our acceleration goes up by a factor of four (2 squared). So to stay on track, even assuming latency is minimal, we need four times as much control authority. Adding latency into the equation, it is quite possible that autoland would no longer be stable at all. The data just wouldn't update fast enough, the control surfaces just wouldn't react quickly enough. The aircraft would start to deviate, overcorrect, be outside the stability box before it knew it, and then unrecoverably lurch off the glideslope. If the control system is designed specifically to handle this, there are ways to fix it. What is done typically is to relax tolerances and integration times. Rather than overdrive the control system, we instead give the aircraft more time to average its position, more gentle control responses, all designed to keep it stable. This isn't too hard to do. But the accuracy suffers because you've deliberately relaxed your constraints. Since our needed acceleration is four times higher, we need four times the integration time, and typically the position accuracy will scale at least linearly. Where we had 3 meter accuracy at normal landing speeds, now we have 12 meter accuracy. Enough to hit a Tower, sure, but not nearly enough to pick your floor. As I explained in the other thread, there are ways to do it. But they cannot depend on autoland. It just doesn't have the precision. Neither does GPS. The most available off-the-shelf analogue in my opinion is DSMAC. I'm pretty confident that it would work fine, but I'm also confident it would be quite laborious and expensive. Originally Posted by Sizzler Still not convincing. I don't see why the upper floors and lower floors could'nt have been prepped for CD, leaving 4 floors (+/-) as the crash zone unprepped for CD. The upper rigging and lower rigging could have been independently set up. Thus, no wiring going through the crash zone. It sounds like what you're describing here is an approach where the aircraft impact and the explosives don't interact at all -- the explosives alone are enough to level the structure, and all the aircraft has to do is miss. I agree, this is relatively possible, although one can never discount the possibility of an unlucky fuel distribution gutting the floor with the explosives... ... but this hypothesis is a terrible match to what we saw. I'm not sure why one would bother, or why you brought it up in the first place. Also, regarding fly-by-wire, as others have remarked fly-by-wire means controls are transmitted from the pilot station to the flight computer electronically, and from there go to transducers that work the control surfaces. In older aircraft, including 757 and 767's, the control is analogue. Think of a newer luxury car -- some of them have "throttle by wire," i.e. the gas pedal just generates an electronic signal, whereas older cars actually have a cable that opens the intake or restricts the carburetor. Fly-by-wire is essential if you want to retrofit an aircraft to have this capability, or to override the pilot. In that case you need a custom flight computer, which is no picnic but theoretically doable. An older aircraft, like these, it would be extremely difficult to lock out the pilot without making the aircraft totally unflyable. Conversions of non fly-by-wire to fly-by-wire are very rare and difficult as well. Among the few, some of my friends at NASA Dryden operate a heavily modified F-15 that was so converted, and it was a significant research project. I know what I'm talking about, and the airline techs and such who post here can give you an even more thorough explanation. But it shouldn't be necessary. The idea of remote control planes is totally ridiculous, and some yutz typing in an article from Aviation Week to impress his similarly ignorant Truth Movement buddies doesn't mean a damn thing.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES Last edited by R.Mackey; 21st July 2008 at 10:05 PM. Reason: I've never heard of a "transucer" either

21st July 2008, 09:26 PM	#34
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: where the grass is greener. Posts: 1,618	Originally Posted by R.Mackey Conversions of non fly-by-wire to fly-by-wire are very rare and difficult as well. Among the few, some of my friends at NASA Dryden operate a heavily modified F-15 that was so converted, and it was a significant research project. I know what I'm talking about, and the airline techs and such who post here can give you an even more thorough explanation. But it shouldn't be necessary. The idea of remote control planes is totally ridiculous, and some yutz typing in an article from Aviation Week to impress his similarly ignorant Truth Movement buddies doesn't mean a damn thing. The only other conversion I know of was coincidentally also at Dryden - the famous CID. I think it is important to note though that the final(!) approach was quite a ways off the center line (although how far I haven't been able to find out quantitatively), but the managers decided to land the plane anyway.

21st July 2008, 09:45 PM	#35
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by AZCat The only other conversion I know of was coincidentally also at Dryden - the famous CID. I think it is important to note though that the final(!) approach was quite a ways off the center line (although how far I haven't been able to find out quantitatively), but the managers decided to land the plane anyway. FSTCID Final Report This is kind of a strange one. The aircraft (a ~~707~~ 720) was not converted to fly-by-wire in the usual sense, but instead had actuators placed in the cockpit, and those actuators controlled via radio. This illustrates the idiocy of the "remote control" idea, as I've brought up several times here and in my whitepaper. I believe the decision to make the best of it after going off the glideslope was not made by management, but by the pilot. I think it was his call that the risk of trying and failing to recover and go around was greater than a partially successful test. But I never spoke to Mr. Fulton about it personally. He retired before my time. Other folks in the DFRC pilot's office might know. ETA: Boeing 720, not a (similar) 707. Human minds are fallible, the written word endures! Read the report, it's interesting.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES Last edited by R.Mackey; 21st July 2008 at 10:00 PM. Reason: As marked

22nd July 2008, 02:20 AM	#36
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,188	Anyone else just love how classy R.Mackey is?
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.