IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Whistleblower Reveals "backdoor" 757 Remote Control And Flight Crew "lockout" Technology, Available Prior To 9/11 - Pilots For 9/11 Truth

rob balsamo
post May 17 2010, 06:58 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Whistleblower Reveals "Backdoor" 757 Remote Control And Flight Crew "Lockout" Technology Available Prior To 9/11

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Wayne Anderson, an Avionics Technician is interviewed by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Wayne reveals his observations of a remote guidance test on a Boeing 757 in which technology was used to control the aircraft remotely, while also being able to "Lockout" the Flight Crew from overriding the autopilot system in order to regain control of the airplane. The following interview discusses the details of this test which was performed prior to September 11, 2001, the violations of FAA regulations and the possibilities using such technology.

Right Click and save target as... (46 min runtime, 21.1mb download)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/RemoteCon...istleblower.mp3

or...

Just press play here...


Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 17 2010, 07:01 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



dang..thought airbus was the only one to put 'silicon' before 'carbon units'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Geezer1776
post May 18 2010, 03:06 AM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 1,267



Some thoughts:

Mr. Anderson, if legit, obviously holds an important piece. For his own safety, he should be sworn and deposed ASAP, with notarized copies of the depo made and distributed beyond hope of any but the most determined destruction. Keep in mind that eyewitness evidence of this kind is admissible in a court of law and, as such, could be exceedingly dangerous in the right (or, from the perps’ point of view, wrong,) circumstances.

People with skills and access need to check out Mr. Anderson’s claims:

Does/did the company he claims to work/have worked for actually exist?
Were one or more Boeing 757 aircraft actually worked on by this company during the time-frame claimed?
Do records of anomalies observed confirm any part of Mr. Anderson’s story?
Was/is there an engineer by the name he gives working for the company at the time he claims?

{Comment: The “engineer” conducting tests as described, using obviously highly proprietary/classified software, was almost certainly at least an “asset” if not a professional agent of at least one Agency. As such, on an operation of the kind in hand, he would be highly likely to have “disappeared” without a trace, a la Vreeland. Also, lack of any recorded anomalies corresponding to Mr. Anderson’s account would not, of themselves, necessarily discredit his claims, given the almost-certain “scrubbing” of data under the claimed circumstances.}

Assuming he remembers the identity of the “customer”, can he also offer guidance as to how we might learn the tail number of the aircraft, date(s) of service, and the names of any other participating personnel, with special emphasis on management-level people. It would be particularly useful to talk with any technicians who actually inspected the aircraft, looking for the “lockout” circuitry.

{Comment: As an ex-electroniker and QC engineer as well as somebody with at least a modicum of common sense, I feel fairly sure of several things:

Mission-critical hardware of the sort involved here will certainly have been subjected to a highly classified, thorough design review overseen, if not conducted, by an Agency, or elements of an Agency, of the U.S. Gov’t.

An important feature of the design is likely to have been ability to be hidden “in plain sight”, i.e. appearing to be an entirely legitimate, fully specified (and hence fully inspectable) element of the on-board avionics suite. (Since I’m neither an avionics tech nor an inspector, I’ve no way of knowing whether inspections go down to the level of actually counting the number of wires in cables and verifying their function, but short of this there seems to be no reason why an autopilot power lock-in relay and associated computer interface couldn’t be tucked into a convenient “black box” whose other functions are completely bona fide.)

Actual hardware manufacture is likely to have been handled, on a sub-contract basis, by an Agency “cut-out”, i.e. a wholly-controlled operation possibly set up exclusively to support this and related activities. This would also have been true of the requisite “back-door” control software; control access code would only be revealed by a detailed source-code review conducted by people not privy to the full real functions of the package – an eventuality most unlikely to unfold absent some major failure review.

Given the above, I see no reason why any Boeing personnel would necessarily have had to be knowingly involved; incoming avionics “black boxes” would have been inspected as to specified physical parameters, subjected to specified environmental and functional testing, installed in airframes, inspected, function-tested and duly certified. The mission-required “extra” wiring might have been labeled “spare” or some other benign term, hence never function-tested. Control software would have been function-tested per spec. – any hidden capabilities would almost certainly have escaped notice.

This, however, brings us to the one truly bizarre feature of this whole scenario: why on earth would the absolutely-critical function-testing of the remote-control, and especially the lockout, capabilities of this hardware/software system have been carried out in such a semi-public manner? Two plausible explanations come to mind:

1. Mr. Anderson’s account is entirely or substantially bogus, and none of the foregoing has any meaning, at least in the present context.

2. The exposure was quite deliberate, intended to plant a “breadcrumb” to be followed up at some future time by knowledgeable people in a position to do so. (The Agencies are NOT monolithic; both deliberate sabotage of illicit operations and their later exposure have occurred from within – thank God.)

Hope this proves of some use – good hunting!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 18 2010, 04:17 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Wow, quite the reply from someone who registered to this forum in 2007, yet make his first post today -- an elaborate post -- I might add.

Welcome Geezer?

(question mark intended)

QUOTE (Geezer1776 @ May 18 2010, 04:06 AM) *
1. Mr. Anderson’s account is entirely or substantially bogus, and none of the foregoing has any meaning, at least in the present context.

2. The exposure was quite deliberate, intended to plant a “breadcrumb” to be followed up at some future time by knowledgeable people in a position to do so. (The Agencies are NOT monolithic; both deliberate sabotage of illicit operations and their later exposure have occurred from within – thank God.)



3. Perhaps someone who knew someone, who knew someone...etc... etc... asked for the software to "play with" on the next "customer" airplane?

We went over this in the above interview. The possibilities and speculation is endless.

Geezer, clearly you worked in the industry, feel free to contact me directly if you find any answers. Names are named.

In the meantime, Wayne has the url to this thread. Not sure if he has registered to the forum yet. But I'm sure he will.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 18 2010, 07:55 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I'm leaving for a few days and have not listened to the interview, but somehow I'm reminded of something I read about one of Dov Zakheim's companies developing and perfecting such a system.

Assuming that everything the man says is true and accurate, I'm not surprised in the least.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kelana
post May 18 2010, 09:58 AM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 14-May 10
Member No.: 5,052



Very interesting interview Rob. What could a pilot lockout function be needed for, other than underhand reasons? Nothing comes to mind...

QUOTE (Geezer1776 @ May 18 2010, 12:06 PM) *
This, however, brings us to the one truly bizarre feature of this whole scenario: why on earth would the absolutely-critical function-testing of the remote-control, and especially the lockout, capabilities of this hardware/software system have been carried out in such a semi-public manner?


Geezer1776 - I got the distinct impression that this lockout 'test' was anything but official and done on the side as an experiment and on this engineer's own initiative, as an add-on to the normal autopilot test. Seems the guy was just checking if, in fact, the software would do what he had been told. Not so bizarre then.

Keith
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post May 18 2010, 11:02 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



I think the idea of a pilot lock-out feature was presented as a way to control a hijacked aircraft from external positions.

Wasn't there a story about Lufthansa replacing its flight computers on planes from the US, because they didn't want the back-door option which they felt could be hacked-into ?

It seems like if the ability is there to send missiles into space and satellites to other planets and men to the Moon (maybe they did) back in the 1960's, then why would it be hard to remote pilot airliners in the 2000's ? Maybe even airliners that can go 520 knots at sea level and whose wings can cut 14" box columns with 1'' wall thickness all the way out to the tips, in the case of the trade towers, be in two places at once, in regard to the Pentagon, and dissappear at will also, leaving incriminating evidence of non-existant hijackers in their place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kelana
post May 18 2010, 11:31 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 23
Joined: 14-May 10
Member No.: 5,052



QUOTE (Maha Mantra @ May 18 2010, 08:02 PM) *
I think the idea of a pilot lock-out feature was presented as a way to control a hijacked aircraft from external positions.


Yeah...that makes sense of course.

I found this article which talks about the same thing (I don't know how reliable the site or author is). Note the comment:

This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special “I have been hijacked” transponder code, despite multiple activation points on all four aircraft. Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by [FBI-inspired] motley crews of Arabs toting penknives.

and Maha Mantra, this may be a reference to Lufthansa (Edit - it is a reference to LH):

Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version.

Keith

This post has been edited by kelana: May 18 2010, 11:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenorwayorg
post May 18 2010, 11:33 AM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-December 09
Member No.: 4,790



All US civilian commercial passenger jets since 1972 have had NORAD flight control overrides of the autopilot system; this was mainly intended to prevent collisons but also provided remote control evasion capability in case of missile threats.

HTTP://bluenorway.org
Http://platinum-ii.in
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post May 18 2010, 11:57 AM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



great interview !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenorwayorg
post May 18 2010, 12:14 PM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-December 09
Member No.: 4,790



A mode C and mode S radio transponder similar to the 1990s test can easily be implemented in a $12usd FPGA. Adding a laptop or pda device in 2001 on board or in luggage would be sufficient and many cell phones of the era would be capable of the control signal processing. The usa vs usama court case was failed by april of that year and there were documented complaints from the y2000 date time issue of the old fly-by-wire concerns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alan H.
post May 18 2010, 12:47 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 71
Joined: 24-November 07
Member No.: 2,508



QUOTE (amazed! @ May 16 2010, 11:55 AM) *
I'm leaving for a few days and have not listened to the interview, but somehow I'm reminded of something I read about one of Dov Zakheim's companies developing and perfecting such a system.

Assuming that everything the man says is true and accurate, I'm not surprised in the least.



Hey, Amazed. I'm amazed to see someone from Ft. Pierce on here! I lived in Ft. Pierce for a good part of my life (unfortunately). One very corrupt town, eh?

I used to have a band called "HollowGraphicSoul", [later changed to "Holographic Souls," which is the name I now use for both my solo and collaborative recordings]. We were just a trio at first; we played out at the old Holiday Inn on North Beach back in October [on Halloween] of 1993, along with some other bands like "Red Soda," and "Mama Spider." We also played in that little club called "Zelmos," though that was with a different lineup and under the name "Performing Autopsies." I used to live over off Ohio, back in Quincy Apts back then.

Anyway, I was in Orlando on 9/11 and when I saw that second plane hit, then the Pentagon, I knew right away that there was no way that many planes could fly around the skies of the most powerfully guarded Nation on Earth for two hours without getting shot out of the sky unless this was allowed to happen. When you add in building 7 and all the other "coincidences" it's simply too much. I wish a serious mathematician would actually calculate out the different odds of all these coincidences, from building 7 to automated pass-ports that survive while 3 steel frame buildings--an entirely new phenomenon that's never occurred before or since 9/11, even in buildings that burned for over 15 hours. And then calculate the odds of all these coincidences, which by themselves represent what must be staggering odds of improbability, all occurring on the exact same day.

Then, you discover this scenario was enacted, almost exactly as it occurred, months earlier? I don't know what to believe, except that we have not been told the truth, and our government is obviously covering something up, as the largest crime scene in American history was deliberately contaminated and destroyed without any investigation.

Well, it's interesting to see someone from Ft. Pierce on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thorn
post May 18 2010, 12:54 PM
Post #13





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 8-August 08
Member No.: 3,758



Rob,

Victor Thorn from WING TV and the American Free Press. I'd like to speak with you in regard to Mr. Anderson and his latest revelations.

Please drop me a line at:

sisyphus1285@cs.com

Thanks, and best wishes,

VT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Devilsadvocate
post May 18 2010, 01:49 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,370
Joined: 3-February 07
From: Ireland
Member No.: 551



Strange...
I remember a press-conference shown on Irish TV shortly after 9/11.
George Bush stated back then that there would be a number of immediate consequences arising out of 9/11-
like reinforced cockpit-doors and the like (...a concept which, to my knowledge, came up years before- in the wake of a spate of hijackings by the PLO).

He then said something like "...We'll also look at some other things- like the possibility to remote-control a highjacked aircraft..."

I'm not sure, but i think it can't have been more than a few days after 9/11.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fizz
post May 18 2010, 02:11 PM
Post #15





Group: Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: 8-December 09
Member No.: 4,777



QUOTE (Devilsadvocate @ May 18 2010, 01:49 PM) *
He then said something like "...We'll also look at some other things- like the possibility to remote-control a highjacked aircraft..."

I'm not sure, but i think it can't have been more than a few days after 9/11.


i remember that being said too but can't remember who exactly said it.

anyway, even if everything the guy said about the technology is true and it was available before 9/11 its still a huge leap to claiming the technology was actually used on 9/11. stinger missiles were available before 9/11 too but it doesnt mean they were used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post May 18 2010, 02:11 PM
Post #16





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Very interesting interview Rob thumbsup.gif , can I publish it at our site 911blog.yweb.sk?

There was also the article from Chris Bollyn about something like this long time ago in the connection with company U.S. Aviation Technology LLC and high brass in the FAA and NTSB - I've linked it here http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10689 , but now the link seems it doesn't work anymore, so here's the new one: http://www.bollyn.com/how-did-spy-software...o-faa-computers
I also remember how I was trying to put the Bollyn's article on 911blogger at the time - with additional links and some technical notes to add some more crucial information to it and how the 911blogger admin reprehensor refused to publish the commented article not even in the blog zone. I still have the quite funny correspondence with him about that... whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 18 2010, 02:26 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



You think this is the guy he is talking about?

David Prentice PE Project Manager: CEV Avionics Systems (Crew Exploration Vehicle; Flight Software Systems Engineer), Jacobs Technology

Jacobs Technology is the advanced technology division of Jacobs Engineering, one of the nation's largest engineering and technical services-only companies. With 70+ years of experience supporting government and commercial clients, we have earned a reputation for excellence and outstanding technical and managerial achievements in quality, performance, and safety.

Our clients include the DOD, NASA, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the DOE, and dozens of commercial clients, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and Saturn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post May 18 2010, 03:35 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (elreb @ May 18 2010, 03:26 PM) *
You think this is the guy he is talking about?

David Prentice PE Project Manager: CEV Avionics Systems (Crew Exploration Vehicle; Flight Software Systems Engineer), Jacobs Technology

Jacobs Technology is the advanced technology division of Jacobs Engineering, one of the nation's largest engineering and technical services-only companies. With 70+ years of experience supporting government and commercial clients, we have earned a reputation for excellence and outstanding technical and managerial achievements in quality, performance, and safety.

Our clients include the DOD, NASA, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the DOE, and dozens of commercial clients, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Rolls-Royce, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler and Saturn.


That looks like the guy.


Wayne is having problems with his internet, once he gets it resolved, he will be here to answer questions.

tume, yes, publish it anywhere and everywhere!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bluenorwayorg
post May 18 2010, 05:29 PM
Post #19





Group: Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: 10-December 09
Member No.: 4,790



I'll have the above mentioned signaling protocols and some basic interface in the Google Android phone device market as "hijack" as well as for the IPhone, however the fast dsp io may require system level code and testing for each physical device.

Remember, there were RC and gps plugins for microsoft flight simulator by the first version in the 90s, I am quite serious a 2000 era pda or laptop would be excessively capable of both the signalling and flight dynamics required.

Not to mention I outlined the situation on Aug 11th of that year.

DieBold!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 18 2010, 08:39 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



If I have my data correct, by 1993 all that remained of Braniff airline was Dalfort Aviation, a training enterprise associated with Love Field in Dallas. As a third-party repair station, they provide scheduled maintenance, major modifications and component services on a wide range of aircraft.

Wayne said the story occurred around 1996-1997:

In 1998 the US Department of Defense’s top policy official acknowledged that the military has covert action teams to combat terrorism and to counter potential terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "We have designated Special Mission Units [SMUs] that are specifically manned, equipped and trained to deal with a wide variety of transnational threats," said Walter Slocombe, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 1994-2001.

Not that there is any direct connection between David Prentice PE , Flight Software Systems Engineer from Jacobs Technology to the subject in question but the clients list including Boeing, the DOD and the U.S. Special Operations Command is interesting. 911 was like Christmas to the Special Operations Command!

Special Operations Command included:

Army Special Operations Command, Joint Special Operations Command (Delta Force, Seal Team 6, Air Force 24th Special Tactics Squadron), Naval Special Warfare Command, Marine Corps Special Operations Command, Air Force Special Operations Command. USSOCOM has an excellent relationship with the CIA's elite Special Activities Division and the two forces often operate together.

Engagements

Operation Urgent Fury (1983) Operation Just Cause (1989) Operation Desert Storm (1990) Operation Provide Comfort (1991) Operation Gothic Serpent (1993) Operation Uphold Democracy (1994) Bosnian War (1996) Operation Allied Force (1999) Operation Enduring Freedom (2001) Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2017 - 02:48 PM