Bartcop destroys some of the 9/11 Conspirac y Idiocy

[WoodrowFan]

A pilot and Bartcop fan destroys some of the idiocy that claims you can't use cellphones on planes. It won't affect the "minds" of the more hardcore consiracy types but it's a breath of fresh air amid all the breathless "what really happened" rumor mongering.

.http://www.bartcop.com/081703pilot.htm

All the bogus claims made in the article, which include that the Boeing 767/757 are "commuter" airplanes that can be flown by "remote-control" are immediate give-aways to anyone who has any aviation background that whoever wrote the article knows nothing about commercial airliners.

[Caution]

1. Darn

My tin hat was just starting to get comfortable...I'll have to take it off and go back to the blue one with the red B on it (Go Sox!)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. Darn those Mariners.

[KoKo]

13. Who cares if those three most fragile theories have been Debunked! .......

I've never gone along with the theories that cell phones couldn't be used in a plane,
or that a plane didn't really fly into the pentagon, or that all the planes were flown by remote control.

I think if that was debunked, it's a good thing.

But, OMG.......look at all the rest of the stuff surrounding 9/11. Who cares if three of the least credible theories were debunked. The other theories need to be thoroughly investigated.

The truth may be much more surprising that what was just debunked, imho....... Rudy Dekkers' Flight School is big enough on it's own to be a shocker if the whole truth about that one every gets national coverage!

[frylock]

2. uhhhhhhhhh.. the only "conspiracy theory" he destoyed..

was the authors assertions that the software(?)would not allow for high-speed maneuvers. The pilot merely pointed out that once the plane was taken out of auto-pilot mode, those maneuvers are possible. As far as the cell phones, I don't think anybody is claiming that calls cannot be made from planes, but that there isn't any real evidence that the call in question (Barbara Olsen) actually took place. As I've stated many times before, I would rather be labeled a conspiracy theorist than a coincidence theorist any day.

[WoodrowFan]

3. nice try but

The article was answering specific claims made by those who'd doubt the sun rose in the east if it made them feel smart by rejecting "the official story."

[frylock]

4. the only claims i see debunked have to do with g-force and phone use..

how does that clear up the MULTITUDE of unanswered questions about that day?!

[WoodrowFan]

5. IMHO

It doesn't but you HAVE to explain away the many cell phone calls from those on the 4 planes to get anywhere in promoting the anti-hijack theories. I won't be reading anym ore of this. My wife and I have a friend who lost a husband on 9/11 and I know eyewitnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon (and have friends who work there who were lucky to survive) so I regard the conspiracy-types as little better intellectually or morally than holocaust deniers. Both deny the truth of a horrible crime in an excercise of mental masturbation in order to justify their personal political demons. signing off.

[frylock]

8. i'm sorry to hear of the loss of your friend..

but burying your head in the sand is not going bring your friend back, nor is it going to help to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Also, I will thank you for not lumping me in with the holocaust deniers. I happen to believe that an airplane hit the Penatagon, but you'll never convince me in a million years that some cropduster school wash out was able to drop that bird gracefully into the first floor.

If you want to believe the company line that people crashed those planes because they hate us for our freedoms, then that's your perogative. However, if you can provide some solid answers to questions like why there was an effective stand-down of military aircraft, or what was the deal with the shorting of stocks for the airlines involved, than perhaps I would be more receptive to what your're saying. Please provide facts rather than personal attacks.

[qanda]

15. When I think about 9/11 one thing comes to mind...

Payne Stewart! If they could scramble jets to his plane in 15 minutes, what on earth happened on the morning of 9/11? Until someone is willing to properly answer that question, I will forever believe that there's more to this story than meets the eye. Of course I could harp on at least ten other glaring inconsistencies on that day, but why bother, the coincidence theorists just believe what they want to belive anyway.

[PATRICK]

20. pro and con

are fighting over an information vacuum and disinformation glut. Wasting time might at least kep that coverup issue alive but tells us practically nothing. You can only guess and theorize and not blow that into a briliiant "discovery". People who coverup deserve to have people put pressure on them. Suspecting the worst or whackiest is no less out of line than being reasonable in fantasizing and giving stonewallers the benefit of the doubt.

For example, you could "guess" that the plane scramble failure was do to
a stand down order involving a CIA enactment of a terrorist attack on NY. The cosmic omelette on face coverup with other self-serving policy obfuscations. That's only a start because coincidence leads one to suspect this is very insufficient and leads necessarily to other suspicious coincidences.

The issue is coverup. The real and tangible conspiracy is enabling that coverup. Trying to find some easy startling evidence might cut through the layers but we are now years past 911 and decades past Kennedy. Guesses are just guesses(some very irritating and repugnant) no matter how many questions they might answer. You can't even get close to taking them to court. Hell, you can't even write a credible conspiracy book! How's that for coverup?

[EOTE]

21. That's what it boils down to....

For a long time, I wanted to believe that 9/11 occured due to criminal negligence on behalf of the shrub administration, but until I get some rational explanations to the questions you just posed, LIHOP is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

[ieoeja]

24. No jets scrambled for Payne Stewart.

A pair of ANG planes in the air at the time were diverted to look over his jet visually.

[qanda]

25. What about

the jets out of Oklahoma which joined the diverted jets out of Eglin. To say that no jets were scrambled for Payne Stewart is factually incorrect and somewhat misses the point that if something so drastic could have been done for that small aircraft, for goodness sake, what in the world happened on 9/11.

This from CNN:

The Air Force says additional F-16s were also scrambled from the Oklahoma Air National Guard unit in Tulsa, but were not used because the Fargo planes arrived first.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/25/wayward.jet.07/

[Galley_Queen]

18. Where are the Videos

of all of these hijackers? Surely there must be video somewhere in the airports showing all these guys entering the planes.

[rfranklin]

10. You don't even know who committed this "horrible crime"

There has been no credible investigation of the 9/11 crashes.

The Bush administration has done everything it could get away with to impede an honest investigation.

Why was there no fighter response for so long?

How did they know the exact identity of the supposed hijackers in a day's time when they had no physical evidence?

I guess Atta's "magic passport" is proof?

Some of the people accused of the crime are alive and well in the Middle East. The lawyer for the 9/11 families who are suing wants to bring them to the trial. What's with that?

On and on....-

[Rex]

11. Sounds like you are very close-minded

Guess you won't be reading this. :eyes:

[qanda]

16. Why start the post

If you're not looking for some discussion on the subject. You saying you won't be reading anymore of this is like you starting a conversation and then placing your fingers in your ears and saying, "I can't hear you!"

[Galley_Queen]

17. You know eyewitnesses?

of the plane that hit the Pentagon? Then where are the photos of the plane? I've yet to see one. Not saying they don't exist, I just haven't seen them.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

6. This pilot gets one thing wrong...

so who knows how accurate he is on the other?

Both the 757 and 767 are fitted with FANS (Future Air Navigation System). The FMCS (Flight Management Computer System) of the 757 and 767 is capable of flying the aircraft based on an input flight plan from immediately after take-off to final approach. FANS integrates with the FMCS to allow either the airline or Air Traffic Control to modify the flight plan inflight.

In other words, once the 757 or 767 is put into autopilot, the airline and ATC can "fly" the aircraft by remote control by setting new waypoints in the FMCS. The FMCS will fly the waypoints with total precision using GPS navigation.

Here is the info from Boeing:

A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing.

The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer.

<SNIP>

Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/200back/back4.html

AIRLINE OPERATIONAL CONTROL DATA LINK.
The AOC link gives airline data systems the ability to transmit new routes, position reports, and updated winds through the data link network.

<SNIP>

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC) DATA LINK.
This function replaces the tactical communication between the flight crew and air traffic controller, allowing the flight crew to request deviations to, or replacements of, the filed flight plan. The air traffic controller also has the ability to directly request tactical changes to the airplane flight plan.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_02/textonly/fo02txt.html

[Kbowe]

12. Puttin my tin foil hat back on!

I checked this out and found it to be fairly factual.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Consider this:

The only reason there are pilots in modern airliners is to make passengers feel safer. The modern FMCS' are more than capable of taking off, flying to a distant location and landing the aircraft. Hell, they could even taxi in to the correct gate!

Consider the Global Hawk (I know, I know, but just read on a moment) pilotless reconnaisance drone. It is capable of taking off, flying half way round the world to a specific location and landing there with aboslutely no human intervention. In fact a year or so ago one flew from the US to Australia unaided. The Global Hawk is smaller than a 757 or 767 and it can do it, so why not an airliner? There is more than enough computing power in the 757/767 FMCS to do it.

In fact such pilotless airliners have been talked about for years, and the result has always been that passengers are not yet comfortable with the idea of letting a computer fly the plane unaided.

But here is the real kicker: they already do! It's just that there are also pilots who "monitor" the computer during flight. If you are in an airliner, it is more likely than not that the FMCS is actually flying the plane. In fact airliners are far safer because of it. Computers don't get distracted or tired, they don't turn up drunk, and they don't get suicidal because of personal problems.

Imagine if those 757/767's on Sept 11 were computer piloted and had NO cockpit. Exactly what could hijackers have done to take over the aircraft and crash it into buildings? Nothing. Sure they could have killed the passengers, and maybe they could have bombed it to fall over a city, but they couldn't have taken it over and flown it into a target, unless of course they managed to hack the data links. But they wouldn't have had to get on the aircraft to do that.

And yet the pilot that wrote to BartCop claims that to suggest an airliner could be remotely piloted shows that the claimant knows nothing about commercial airliners! It seems that this pilot may be just a little out of date - like 10 years out of date.

on edit: By the way, have you ever wonder why, out of all the different aircraft that could have been hijacked, the four hijacked aircraft were either 757's or 767's? Could it be because both of those types of aircraft have the FANS FMCS, while few others do? The 777 has it as standard, but the 747 has to be retrofitted with it, and most haven't, likewise the many other variants of commercial airliner... Still I'm not saying this means anything, its just... interesting...

[nolabels]

19. Thanks for clearing that up Devils Advocate NZ

I was looking for some info on that same thing a while back, when somebody was balking at such a thing. Another tidbit of information to keep at hand.

[evworldeditor]

22. What Happen to the NTSB?

Every civilian aviation crash is investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, but these four crashes. WHY?

Why doesn't the hole in the side of the Pentagon match the fuselage cross section of size a Boeing 767?

Why don't the passenger manifests match?

Why are there no Arab names among the passenger lists?

Don't tell me that an NTSB investigation -- if everything is above board here -- would jeoparize national security, unless the truth, no matter how unpleasant, jeopardized the powers-that-be.

I am willing to accept the facts of the story as told because I don't want to believe our government would lie to this extent, but I would feel more comfortable if the NTSB had immediately responded and begun investigations of the crashes. After all, their headquarters is just across the Potomac from the Pentagon. They can investigate civilian airline crashes in Africa and Taiwan, but not in the Commonwealth of Virginia?

[ieoeja]

23. I don't see anything on either link ...

... about flying the planes remotely. The closest I see is where it sounds like they have added the ability to download flight plans for the auto-pilot via satellite links. Someone still has to handle takeoffs and landings, turning the auto-pilot on, etc.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

26. Ok...

Now is where we enter into the realm of speculation. Yes, a FANS equipped aircraft can be remotely piloted via the data links. The onboard FMCS actually flies the plane, but the flight plan it flies can be changed via an external signal. Thus the aircraft is actually being piloted from the ground becuase it will fly where the person on the ground tells it to fly.

You will notice that Boeing actually says that the FMCS can fly the aircraft from "immediately after take-off to final approach and landing". To me this means that, unaltered, the FMCS can land the aircraft on a given runway. Takeoff is actually easier than landing, so one would assume that the FMCS could also takeoff, but that for some reason it has been disabled from doing so.

Now where the speculation comes in is how the autopilot can be made to take over the aircraft and prevent the pilots from regaining control. It seems to me that the FMCS could easily be reprogrammed to refuse to be disabled once it has been put into automatic mode.

Of course, if we are suggesting that the government was behind the "hijacking" then we can also assume they would have access to the aircraft pre-flight in order to change programming or circuit boards.

By the way, I have not said that I believe this is what happened. In fact I believe it WAS Al Qaeda, but that Al Qaeda is in fact a Bush/CIA proxy force, and that these hijackers really thought they were dying for Allah, when in fact they were dying for Bush and his oil buddies.

However, I hate seeing people suggest something is totally preposterous when in fact it is perfectly plausible and in fact would be rather simple for the US government to pull off if it so wished.

[WilliamPitt]

7. I'd bet my shoes

this was written by DemoTex.