Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

anart said:
Christophera said:
Charles said:
So how do you handle all these conflicting data ?
The data you've posted does not conflict with the substancial statements showing that remote control with 757/767's is VERY difficult to execute. What you have posted relates to "automated guidence" not remote control and there is a big difference.
That's probably an important distinction to make - it's been my impression that automated remote control has been the implication made by Charles, but I could be mistaken.
Actually, no. The reason I have cited these technical specificities is quite simply because they are in conflict with what was stated by Christophera and used as an argument that remote control is very difficult to near impossible.

Christophera said:
"They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury."

was not even a phrase concieved of when the 757 and 767 were built. The limiters on g forces are eletromechanical analog devices and have nothing to do with software. They are very diffificult to interface to digital control with the precission required. This is why the 747 was created.
The technicalities prove otherwise.

They also demonstrate that:

1) It is not so difficult to make those planes remote controlled. They have a fully integrated flight management computer system. Who doesn’t have wireless these days with which to control his home computer. Almost every home computer has a DECT system.

2) They have already an automated guidance as Christophera has pointed out. More precisely, it is ALREADY possible to fly these planes from one spot, say an airport to another spot, without the need of ANY human or pilot : from take off, the entire flight path can be programmed up to landing. All it takes to do this is to download the right soft ware program, and hook up with a GPS or other positioning system. Maybe in this case the flight path had some well foreseen obstacles on its way. So in this case it was take off, the programmed flight path and … crash. … and at least in one case, with a programmed but miraculously looking banking manoeuvre right before it was about to encounter the obstacle. Such did give the impression that there must be some human suicidal pilot pulling the steering wheel, did it not.

The 5 G’s that were calculated to result from that banking manoeuvre do give away something else. If there is indeed a limiter on possible G forces, than it means that the planes were tampered with (maybe only software wise), or that we see the manoeuvres of altogether different planes.
More importantly and no matter what the answer stated in the above , this DISproves a classic hijacking scenario. Think about that.

There is also one big BUT.
From what I have learned those Boeings are not completely fly-by-wire. The first entirely fly-by-wire seems to be the 777. This means that a pilot would be able to overcome the automatic flight control, by using his hands and muscular force.
So for both scenarios it implies that the crew (and as a side effect, maybe also the passengers) should be incapacitated to put it mildly.

How much G does it take before one becomes unconscious ?
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Charles said:
They also demonstrate that:

1) It is not so difficult to make those planes remote controlled. They have a fully integrated flight management computer system. Who doesn’t have wireless these days with which to control his home computer. Almost every home computer has a DECT system.

2) They have already an automated guidance as Christophera has pointed out. More precisely, it is ALREADY possible to fly these planes from one spot, say an airport to another spot, without the need of ANY human or pilot : from take off, the entire flight path can be programmed up to landing. All it takes to do this is to download the right soft ware program, and hook up with a GPS or other positioning system. Maybe in this case the flight path had some well foreseen obstacles on its way. So in this case it was take off, the programmed flight path and … crash. … and at least in one case, with a programmed but miraculously looking banking manoeuvre right before it was about to encounter the obstacle. Such did give the impression that there must be some human suicidal pilot pulling the steering wheel, did it not.

The 5 G’s that were calculated to result from that banking manoeuvre do give away something else. If there is indeed a limiter on possible G forces, than it means that the planes were tampered with (maybe only software wise), or that we see the manoeuvres of altogether different planes.
More importantly and no matter what the answer stated in the above , this DISproves a classic hijacking scenario. Think about that.

There is also one big BUT.
From what I have learned those Boeings are not completely fly-by-wire. The first entirely fly-by-wire seems to be the 777. This means that a pilot would be able to overcome the automatic flight control, by using his hands and muscular force.
So for both scenarios it implies that the crew (and as a side effect, maybe also the passengers) should be incapacitated to put it mildly.

How much G does it take before one becomes unconscious ?
Be sure that the airframe on an airliner cannot accomodate such g's. An f15 can pull 7 g's pilots go unconscious at around 5. Transport aircraft certify at 2.5 g's.

Reading here will expand knowledge on "fly by wire".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems#Fly-by-wire.

Basically there is a huge difference in the remote control potentials between analog and digital "fly by wire". Certainly the first 747's were analog by the articles linked. And the 777 was the first digital "fly by wire". Below it is shown that the 747-400 is "fly by wire"

Due to the fact that remote potentials were not a public issue until 9-11, the relationships between them are not clearly delineated.

http://home.clara.net/rod.beavon/7471.htm

747-400. Built with a fully EFIS cockpit (i.e. electronic instruments and fly-by-wire technology; pictured right)

c11d-747-400.jpg


Basically we have to go with the statements of experienced pilots as they are consistent with the available information. Of course, it has been proven that a 757/767 can be flown remotely. However, this is a fairly major technological feat because they are analog "fly by wire" and not digital.

Charles,

It is very important to distinguish in your posts on this highly technological subject exactly which plane you are referring to as well as which era of development it originates. For example, you write; "More precisely, it is ALREADY possible to fly these planes from one spot, say an airport to another spot, without the need of ANY human or pilot"; which is NOT "more precisely at all because you have not identified which plane you are talking about.

http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html


A Dissenting View:

I am a retired Airline Captain, currently flying Business Jets. I have an Airline Transport Pilot Rating qualifying me to fly Captain on Boeing 707/720/727/747-400/757/767/777, Lockheed 382 and L-1011, and Dassault 20 and 2000 Aircraft. I have over 28,000 hours, several thousand of which were in command of 757/767's.

There is no provision for a 757/767 to be flown remotely. It can't be done. Period. Nothing disables the Flight or Voice Recorders, etc., except for the pulling of circuit breakers in the cockpit.

The 1.5 G limit built into the flight control system isn't there. The 757/767 does not have electronic flight controls- "fly by wire" and I don't know of any way to design these limits into the system without fly by wire. Some fly by wire aircraft- the Airbus 319/320/330/340 series and some military aircraft, for example- do have these artificial limits. The limits on the 'Busses is about 2.5 G's. Since the airplane is pulling 1 G in straight and level flight there would only be 1/2 G left for manuvering- not much.

The 757/767 cannot- repeat cannot be "programmed" to fly without a Pilot. It has a very good autopilot, capable of manipulating the controls as directed by the ON BOARD Crew in climb, cruise, descent, and- in some cases- landing. It must be disconnected for takeoff.

The 757/767 is hardly a Commuter aircraft. These are the small jets such as the Canadair and Embraer Jets and Turboprops used by Regional Airlines.

Herb Fischer

Viewzone:

As an avionics engineer, I also would like to stress out that there are NO provisions on 757/767 aircraft to have it remote controlled. Also, the CVR itself only can be erased by having the parking brake set and the erase button actuated. Not something you can do in flight. You can before start and pull the CVR CB though.

Regarding turn control: there is a banklimiter but when flown by hand, it won't work. The automatic pilot is similar to the 747-400. It cannot do a complete start. It is able to engage lateral navigation and vertical navigation _after you have reached the radio altitude of 100 and 400 ft if I recall correct. So the AP functions are armed but will NOT be able to control the aircraft at the time you select Take-OFF.

I am pretty sure that there are big question marks about that the Govt of the USA showed and told us and I am pretty sure quite a bit is staged, just like some other past disasters. However, technically, the story "Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits" in this case, is just BS.

imapbox@xs4all.nl
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Christophera said:
Reading here will expand knowledge on "fly by wire".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems#Fly-by-wire.
Reading this will expand only illusion that it expands your knowledge that concerns the particular cases at hand. What is for "the public" has very little to do with what is "secret". And in our particular case there is no doubt that what we are being told publicly has very little relation to the reality. Lies upon lies, scrupulously constructed, controlled and disseminated by the government, military and industry complex. Except that once in a while there is a "human glitch" - that is how we learn about the lies. Who has eyes and want to see the lies - can see them. Who doesn't want to see them - will never see them.

"The above, and the common knowledge of presidential blockage of a lawful investigation, the destruction of evidence, etc., is proof that NO official anything is worth much at all in denial."

_http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

ark said:
Christophera said:
Reading here will expand knowledge on "fly by wire".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems#Fly-by-wire.
Reading this will expand only illusion that it expands your knowledge that concerns the particular cases at hand. What is for "the public" has very little to do with what is "secret". And in our particular case there is no doubt that what we are being told publicly has very little relation to the reality. Lies upon lies, scrupulously constructed, controlled and disseminated by the government, military and industry complex. Except that once in a while there is a "human glitch" - that is how we learn about the lies. Who has eyes and want to see the lies - can see them. Who doesn't want to see them - will never see them.

"The above, and the common knowledge of presidential blockage of a lawful investigation, the destruction of evidence, etc., is proof that NO official anything is worth much at all in denial."

_http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
My experience led me to find what is public and that was congruent with my experience regarding analog interfaces to hydraulic over hydraulic servos used in aircraft found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_flight_control_systems#Fly-by-wire.

Not a secret. These days it is very rare to find anyone knowledgeable enough with analog circuitry to do anything with it at all, even repair it.

What is secret is the uses of hypnosis on children with somnambulism (esdaile state) that perpetuates the secrecy you mention. Failure to discuss that supports the secrecy. Can you please comment on this as it has everything to do with the military and industry complex you mention.
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

The 747-400 is no fly-by-wire. EFIS instrumentation does not mean fly-by-wire. EFIS is just EFIS ie, Electronic Flight Instrument Systems which has nothing to do about flight controls. I know because I flew the 744 for a number of years and currently instructing on the B777, which as Charles mentions earlier, is a true fly-by-wire flight controls.

On the 744 (747-400), pilot control inputs are routed via cables to hydraulic servos attached to the control surfaces which are then positioned accordingly. On the 777, pilot's control inputs are first routed through ACE's (Actuator Control Electronics)which then send signals to the primary flight control surfaces. Each ACE is assigned to different actuators on the control surfaces. No single ACE controls more than one actuator on a control surface.

The ACEs can transmit pilot control inputs directly to the control surfaces, or they can send the pilot inputs to the PFCs (primary flight computers) When the ACEs are sending pilot inputs to the PFCs, the ACEs receive control commands back from the PFCs and use the commands to position the flight control surfaces.

Viewzone said:
Regarding turn control: there is a banklimiter but when flown by hand, it won't work. The automatic pilot is similar to the 747-400. It cannot do a complete start. It is able to engage lateral navigation and vertical navigation _after you have reached the radio altitude of 100 and 400 ft if I recall correct. So the AP functions are armed but will NOT be able to control the aircraft at the time you select Take-OFF.
To be precise, yes the autopilot must be manually engaged, ie a button is pushed by the pilot in the cockpit for the autopilot to engage. Yes the autopilot cannot be armed for takeoff. The normal engagement of the autopilot is done by the pilot not below 200ft AGL (Above ground level). The lateral and vertical navigation modes can be armed and the lateral navigation engages at 50ft AGL and the vertical navigation engages at 400ft AGL but that has nothing to do with the autopilot. The autopilot, if engaged, flies the flight director (FD) which get their signal(lateral and vertical navigation signals) from the Flight Management Computers (FMC's) which are programmed on the ground by the pilot (modified in flight as needed or necessary).

The bank limiter is not available on the 744 but is available on the B777 and basically what the ACE's will do is that when the pilot flying without the autopilot engaged, exceeds a set bank angle, it will introduce a much stronger force to maintain that bank angle above the set limit (35 degrees). That is not to say that it cannot be exceeded; just that a lot more force would be required to maintain it.

Charles said:
How much G does it take before one becomes unconscious ?
When I was in the Air Force, we had to go thru a "G" force simulator and I have heard of pilots going up to 9g's before blacking out. But that is the exception rather than the norm. Most would conk out around 3g's or so and that is without a "G" suit. So basically there is no set lower figure but I am guessing that the upper figure would be about 3 to 4g's for most normal healthy adults.
 
Christophera said:
What is secret is the uses of hypnosis on children with somnambulism (esdaile state) that perpetuates the secrecy you mention. Failure to discuss that supports the secrecy. Can you please comment on this as it has everything to do with the military and industry complex you mention.
Well, it is just a part of what you can find searching Google for: Greenbaum Jadczyk.
 
ark said:
Christophera said:
What is secret is the uses of hypnosis on children with somnambulism (esdaile state) that perpetuates the secrecy you mention. Failure to discuss that supports the secrecy. Can you please comment on this as it has everything to do with the military and industry complex you mention.
Well, it is just a part of what you can find searching Google for: Greenbaum Jadczyk.
That seeems evasive. I asked for a comment on the primary propagatory activities wherin the unconscious minds of children are conditioned towards capitulation with the military industrial complex later in life, and I get unidentified reference that might come from google which was something you objected to in the beginning with your original comment.

Further, that military industrial complex, or those that run it are held in check by exploiation of the instincts (unconsciously) of those in charge as children, later using other children within sexual abuse and sex in blackmail. This is primary to keeping secrets and what could be termed "occult" activity do you agree?
 
Christophera said:
That seeems evasive. I asked for a comment on the primary propagatory activities wherin the unconscious minds of children are conditioned towards capitulation with the military industrial complex later in life, and I get unidentified reference that might come from google which was something you objected to in the beginning with your original comment.
Quite often I use Google as the dtabase of sources, which then must be sorted out. The database is organized in such a way that if use proper keywords - you get what you need. The keywords that I provided were such.

Christophera said:
Further, that military industrial complex, or those that run it are held in check by exploiation of the instincts (unconsciously) of those in charge as children, later using other children within sexual abuse and sex in blackmail. This is primary to keeping secrets and what could be termed "occult" activity do you agree?
That IS a secret, indeed. But it is part of a more general phenomenon, which we call Greeanbauming people. There are many tools.
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

ark said:
Christophera said:
That seeems evasive. I asked for a comment on the primary propagatory activities wherin the unconscious minds of children are conditioned towards capitulation with the military industrial complex later in life, and I get unidentified reference that might come from google which was something you objected to in the beginning with your original comment.
Quite often I use Google as the dtabase of sources, which then must be sorted out. The database is organized in such a way that if use proper keywords - you get what you need. The keywords that I provided were such.

Christophera said:
Further, that military industrial complex, or those that run it are held in check by exploiation of the instincts (unconsciously) of those in charge as children, later using other children within sexual abuse and sex in blackmail. This is primary to keeping secrets and what could be termed "occult" activity do you agree?
That IS a secret, indeed. But it is part of a more general phenomenon, which we call Greeanbauming people. There are many tools.
Okay, I found the page but can't term what it decribes as "general phenomenon". It describes specific techniques that are are a part of more modern programming which has technological complexity and is used by the infiltrators of the military industrial complex to create agents in the general population which will react as conditioned.

The secrecy that is really a problem in government is from ancient and natural origins which begins on children using somnambulism or the esdaile state and creates cooperation based instincts. It is a natural form of hypnosis, even telepathic hypnosis, which can originate from somnambulistic states in rapport.

It is a part of ancient sun worship and the creation of oral histories, a true " general phenomenon" and, in many ways has replaced oral histories as an abuse of the unconscious mind. It may also utilize sexual abuse but does so from a much less traumatic basis instead relying on exploitations of instincts, primarily fear.

There is a tendency to make this programming seem a much more complex technological affair than it really is. Much more involved than it really is. Contact with the unconscious mind of a child is all that is needed wherein knowledge of instincts is applied.

It is referred to within the ancient circles who us it as "the secret that keeps itself".
 
Vulcan59 said:
The 747-400 is no fly-by-wire. EFIS instrumentation does not mean fly-by-wire. EFIS is just EFIS ie, Electronic Flight Instrument Systems which has nothing to do about flight controls. I know because I flew the 744 for a number of years and currently instructing on the B777, which as Charles mentions earlier, is a true fly-by-wire flight controls.
Okay, I can see that is logical. Which goes beyond saying the 757/767 is not a fly by wire if my points about the analog interfacing are taken.

The point being that "flight controls" are not "remote controls" and unless the plane is designed with digital interfacing, remote control is quite difficult to effect.

The divergence Ark and I have undertaken might seem off topic but actually relates to the public tendency to "believe" that remote control "must" have been involved and that "evil government" did it.

As I said earlier, human nature dictates that when people are involved with dramatic and dangerous ruses, they will use everything available to be sure the ruse is credible and successful, and, it is not reasonable to consider that for some unknown reason they would NOT use everything available to conduct the ruse with as much credibility as possible.

The issue of the backwards fall/impact sequence of the towers is a severe blow to credibilityif plane imapacts and resultant fires are to be blamed. Which, all by itself logically says that NO REMOTE CONTROL WAS USED over anything whatsoever.

There were timers and there were vibration sensors or RF proximity sensors in the towers which reacted to transmitters on the planes. All of this isolated the identities of those responsible which obviosly was deemed more important than a perfect ruse. Another way of logically justifying this is that the perpetrators were so confident in their post event damage control via psyops and disinformation, control over media etc, that they were more worried about having ways to connect their identities to the event than they were about controlling the public opinions of the causes of the event.
 
Christophera said:
As I said earlier, human nature dictates that when people are involved with dramatic and dangerous ruses, they will use everything available to be sure the ruse is credible and successful, and, it is not reasonable to consider that for some unknown reason they would NOT use everything available to conduct the ruse with as much credibility as possible.
My immediate reaction to this was something like: "Ok point taken."

After letting it sink in however, there are some holes and jumps that you make in this paragraph at least that is to my knowledge. For instance :

The entire ruse IS full of holes and contradictions. Among the signs created during and after the ruse there are a lot that provide direct and circumstantial evidences that contradict or downright disprove the official version. This is so much so that my partner, once she came out of her slumber to take a look at it, spontaneously reacted that they must be extremely stupid and/or sloppy, OR that for some hard to understand reason, that they did this on purpose.

Fact is that this does not support what you are stating in this paragraph: that they would conduct the ruse with as much credibility as possible.

And then there is a second thing which leaves me clueless in your statement. Why would human nature dictate such? What exactly do you mean when you use the term human nature?

Is it not also within our 3D human nature to be susceptible to the law of INERTIA, as in "we tend to become very lazy". If a psychopath knows that with one single lie or deception, he can change the entire landscape to his hand, and get away with it, will he still feel compelled to make it even more complex, to gain even more credibility? I think that he will just do it, compulsively even.

And thus, I think that they will use what seems sufficient to them (the KISS principle). Such has the secondary advantage that the number of people "in the know" is kept to a basic minimum. Combine this insight with a "lazy" attitude and arrogant wishful thinking and you have the recipe for a ruse that has left holes and contradictions all over the remaining ruin.

I also think that a puppet hijacker, even when commandeered, is a bigger risk for blowing off the lid of such conspiracy, than some computerized guidance. Remember the military drill that was running that very day (NORAD and such).

Maybe there even WAS a hijacker, but NOT necessarily a suicide pilot. The role of the hijacker however, was entirely different. And if the plot would be screwed, all they had to say was something like: “Hey, relax, calm down everybody, this was just a drill you know, and here is our stand-in "hijacker". He did a fine job, and although originally descendent from Jordanian parents, a true full blooded patriot by now. For this Mohammed, I am sure you will receive the purple heart or whatever."
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Charles said:
Christophera said:
As I said earlier, human nature dictates that when people are involved with dramatic and dangerous ruses, they will use everything available to be sure the ruse is credible and successful, and, it is not reasonable to consider that for some unknown reason they would NOT use everything available to conduct the ruse with as much credibility as possible.
My immediate reaction to this was something like: "Ok point taken."

After letting it sink in however, there are some holes and jumps that you make in this paragraph at least that is to my knowledge. For instance :

The entire ruse IS full of holes and contradictions. Among the signs created during and after the ruse there are a lot that provide direct and circumstantial evidences that contradict or downright disprove the official version. This is so much so that my partner, once she came out of her slumber to take a look at it, spontaneously reacted that they must be extremely stupid and/or sloppy, OR that for some hard to understand reason, that they did this on purpose.

Fact is that this does not support what you are stating in this paragraph: that they would conduct the ruse with as much credibility as possible.

And then there is a second thing which leaves me clueless in your statement. Why would human nature dictate such? What exactly do you mean when you use the term human nature?

Is it not also within our 3D human nature to be susceptible to the law of INERTIA, as in "we tend to become very lazy". If a psychopath knows that with one single lie or deception, he can change the entire landscape to his hand, and get away with it, will he still feel compelled to make it even more complex, to gain even more credibility? I think that he will just do it, compulsively even.

And thus, I think that they will use what seems sufficient to them (the KISS principle). Such has the secondary advantage that the number of people "in the know" is kept to a basic minimum. Combine this insight with a "lazy" attitude and arrogant wishful thinking and you have the recipe for a ruse that has left holes and contradictions all over the remaining ruin.

I also think that a puppet hijacker, even when commandeered, is a bigger risk for blowing off the lid of such conspiracy, than some computerized guidance. Remember the military drill that was running that very day (NORAD and such).

Maybe there even WAS a hijacker, but NOT necessarily a suicide pilot. The role of the hijacker however, was entirely different. And if the plot would be screwed, all they had to say was something like: “Hey, relax, calm down everybody, this was just a drill you know, and here is our stand-in "hijacker". He did a fine job, and although originally descendent from Jordanian parents, a true full blooded patriot by now. For this Mohammed, I am sure you will receive the purple heart or whatever."
I see your points. All I can say is you are failing to integrate the mind control aspect into the logic of human nature and the aspects of 9-11 discussed.

A mind controlled Muslim hijacker who is enabled to board a plane and take it over makes for a better ruse without adding any opportunity for identification of the true perpetrators. This goes for NORAD command as well, and they wouldn't know it.

True, "The entire ruse IS full of holes and contradictions." but, as I stated, the perps know how effective their psyops/disinfo/media campaign is and are counting on that to prevail. As far as I can tell, their analysis has been correct so far. The 9-11 movement is filled with impossibilty that is embraced by a fearful and ignorant public.

This can be easily seen by the fact that the entire movement accepts the FEMA structure as the structure that existed even though what happened is impossible with that structure and no 9-11 photo can confirm that structure. All major videos fail to mention this fact.

The core of the towers was a steel reinforced cast concrete tube.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

but the movement, probably due to MKULTRA controlled quasi leadership, does not want to discuss the issue. Presenting the facts is left to yours truly in a solo BB battle in denial land.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426

With over 11,000 posts and 260,000 views and final censoring with not one picture of steel core columns in the core area at some elevation over ground level posted, my point is made (a few weak attempts at misrepresentation debunked tho).

My point here is that IF remote control over events existed at the WTC, then the impact/fall sequence would be logical and it is not. Human nature says IF the capacity for the execution of a logical ruse exists THEN it will be used meaning that 9-11 at the WTC would not be "full of holes and contradictions" and it is, therefore remote was not used.
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

Christophera said:
My point here is that IF remote control over events existed at the WTC, then the impact/fall sequence would be logical and it is not. Human nature says IF the capacity for the execution of a logical ruse exists THEN it will be used meaning that 9-11 at the WTC would not be "full of holes and contradictions" and it is, therefore remote was not used.
This is an example of an incorrect statement. Remote control is based on programming that is being done in advance by human beings. Computer very often behave "illogically". For instance Windoze users quite often see a "blue screen of death" for, apparently, no reason at all. One day the PC boots in a "normal" or "quasi-normal" way, another day it boots with "dumping the memory". Moreover human and programmed modes can intertwine any way one may want. It is not all black or white. There is a whole spectrum in between. You are conveniently forgetting about things that do not fit your theory. This is not the way research should be done.

You mention the core issue. This is a very interesting issue indeed. But still, existing theories concentrate mainly on the assumption that we know all the available technologies of destruction. But we don't. Assuming that we do is another arbitrary assumption.
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

I wanted to reply but Ark beat me to it and he stated

Ark said:
...But still, existing theories concentrate mainly on the assumption that we know all the available technologies of destruction. But we don't. Assuming that we do is another arbitrary assumption.
Exactly what I wanted to say but Ark put it better. Thanks Ark.
 
Boeing’s Uninterruptible Autopilot System

ark said:
Christophera said:
My point here is that IF remote control over events existed at the WTC, then the impact/fall sequence would be logical and it is not. Human nature says IF the capacity for the execution of a logical ruse exists THEN it will be used meaning that 9-11 at the WTC would not be "full of holes and contradictions" and it is, therefore remote was not used.
This is an example of an incorrect statement. Remote control is based on programming that is being done in advance by human beings. Computer very often behave "illogically". For instance Windoze users quite often see a "blue screen of death" for, apparently, no reason at all. One day the PC boots in a "normal" or "quasi-normal" way, another day it boots with "dumping the memory". Moreover human and programmed modes can intertwine any way one may want. It is not all black or white. There is a whole spectrum in between. You are conveniently forgetting about things that do not fit your theory. This is not the way research should be done.

You mention the core issue. This is a very interesting issue indeed. But still, existing theories concentrate mainly on the assumption that we know all the available technologies of destruction. But we don't. Assuming that we do is another arbitrary assumption.
Hinging an investigation and its continuance on the fact that unidentified technologies of destruction may exist is unwise, particuary if existing technologies can be used to attain the effects seen.

From my experience all technology is very logical. The humans desiging or trying to understand it may not be logical or knowledgable enough to identify the logic, which is very human. Simply another way to say, "things happen for a reason, wether you know the reason or not."

Another question I could apply in answer is, "Do you have an explanation for the backwards "impact/fall sequence" which is congruent with known technologies?

The resultant concrete particulate, its abundance and size are actually very strong evidence for the scenario presented here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Back
Top Bottom