Engine Experts?, hi res. FEMA photos Options

[skywatcher]

Hi Tocarm & JohnDoeX
I appreciate it can be irritating to you, trying to get your point across. However, in fairness to MC, he was not calling you "nuts". He said "The government can just tell, it's wrong, and all 911 truth nutcases followed it fully! " meaning, the government will say "it is wrong and 911truthers are nuts because they fell for it".
I suspect that MC does not have English as his first language but I felt he was being quite respectful, albeit annoying.
I imagine that there are other people like me who read your posts and have much less technical knowledge than MC does. I hadn't even made a distinction between "remotely" and "automatically" controlled aircraft which he seems to be trying to do, but I must admit I'm not sure where its all going.
Have not had time to read your replies yet, and the engines seem to have got lost in a sea of Pentagon pictures!
Ah well, I'll have to come back tomorrow. Have a good day. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

This post has been edited by skywatcher: Jan 10 2007, 10:19 AM

[tocarm]

Dear Skywatcher,

Regarding "automatically" vs. "remotely". It's not too terribly techincally complicated.

I'm not a computer whiz, but....when you TURN ON your computer, it accesses all sorts of operating programs in order "to boot" itself up - turns on your monitor, turns on your sound (if you have speakers), turns on your printer, etc.

The RESIDENT programs within your "turned OFF" and laying DORMANT computer allow it to preform a whole host of >AUTOMATIC< functions. And a whole slew of other programs that likewise reside in your computer's memory - on its hard drive, etc. - allow YOU to continue to COMMAND IT to preform a whole slew of OTHER "automatic" opertions - like signing onto the Internet, etc.

You and your computer do these things - "commanding it to do AUTOMATIC operations" of all manner and sorts - by YOUR fingers walking over the keys of your QWERTY keyboard and typing in a series of alpha/numeric symbols (human recognized symbols) which your computer turns into ASCII digitized binary codes which are COMPUTER recognized symbols.

Now then...onto grasping the concept of "Remotely Controlled"...

If there was ANOTHER keyboard attached or "piggy backed" to your computer, and if that OTHER keyboard has its wiring/cabling a lenght of a 100, a 1,000, a 10,000, a 100,000 MILES LONG - and the other end of this enormously l-o-n-g cable found its way into the BOWELS OF THE PENTAGON in some cubical, in some office, in some bunker, in some janitor's closet in the BASEMENT LEVEL of the Pentagon, if and when you turned 'ON' your own home computer and it was "booted" up - ready to receive its next HUMAN instruction to preform this, that or the other function it is capable of AUTOMATICALLY preforming...

....all that would need to happen for any and all sorts of PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITES to be relentlessly shoved in front of your face, your wife's face, your kid's face would be for that KEYBOARD in the BASEMENT OF THE PENTAGON to have the PROPER PORNO WEBSITE ADDRESSES typed into it by a "REMOTE CONTROLLING HUMAN BEING" - one right after another - with the RETURN KEY depressed after each and every porno website address typed into/onto it.

Now THAT is what the big difference here is with 'AUTOMATIC' vs 'REMOTE' control with respect to flying Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s - and which makes PILOTLESS aircraft not only a possibility - but an actual technological REALITY in our day and age.

When a real life PILOT/CO-PILOT enters their aircrafts cockpit - ooppss...gotta be PC nowadays - their aircraft's "flight deck" - equipped with Flight Management Computers, Flight Control Compters and all the lastest/greatest/niftiest Navigational Aid gizmos (Inertial Reference Units, Laser Gyros coupled with the older types of Distance Measuring Equipment - DME - etc.), it's like YOU taking the seat behind your own personal computer.

The Pilot/Co-pilot has THEIR "keyboard" in the flight deck called a Cockpit Display Unit - a 'CDU' - and the CDU is nothitng but a glorified/airborne compact computer with its own keyboard, resident programs and a 4" by 4" display monitor all compressed into the size of a 2/3rd's size shoe box.

The CDU can take human pilot/co-pilot alpha-numeric keyboard inputs from both the pilot and co-pilot for a WHOLE LONG LIST, a WHOLE LONG HOST of things specifically pertinent to their flying of their aircraft.

It can accept navigation inputs such as GSP coordinates of their departure airport to their destination airport - and the on-board computers AUTOMATICALLY figures out the best routes and flying protocols to get there. And that is but ONE such feature of the computerized power GIVEN TO the human Pilot and Co-pilot flying a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767.

So these Pilots and Co-pilots of current Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s can >>AUTOMATICALLY<< fly their B757/B767 from 'Point A' to 'Point B' if they so desired.

Now then, with RADIO COMMUNICATIONS - principally here with Satellite Communications - if a "SATCOM accessible" ground controller anywheres on planet earth - probably in either Arlington, VA or in Washington D.C. - has the "SATCOM Cell Phone Number" of any AA Boeing 757 OR any UA Boeing 767, all that ground controller needs to do is but to use SATCOM to "dial up" that aircraft's SECRET/ASSIGNED CELL PHONE NUMBER - the onboard Satcom Antenna receives the Satcom Cell Phone Number and relays it to the on-board Satellite Data Unit (SDU). If the SDU 'sees' that the Satcom Cell Phone Number is it's OWN, it "picks up" its receiver and beings to "computer talk" to the Satcom ground controller.

If the Satcom Ground Controller KNOWS the "Secret Password" of that or any particular Satcom equipped Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 - and IF that Satcom Ground Controller inputs and transmits that "Secret Pass Word" FOR that particular B757 or B767 - then the SDU "passes through" any and all DIGITAL DATA to the "back side" of the cockpit CDU.

The CDU then, in turn, relays and and all of the SATCOM transmitted data to any and and all of the on-board B757/B767 computers - principally - the on-board FLIGHT MANAGEMENT COMPUTER.

The Satcom Ground Controller can then REMOTELY CONTROL any and all B757s and B767s using this SATCOM - SDU - CDU - FMC - making it fly whereever he/she/they want and whatever airspeeds/altitudes they want making it do whatever air manueverings/turns/dives/climbs they want.

And THAT, my dear Skywatcher - is what all of this is about - 'AUTOMATICALLY' flying a B757/B767 with HUMAN pilot/co-pilot in charge of that B757/B767 - OR - 'REMOTE CONTROL' flying a B757/B767 with a HUMAN ground controller(s) using the SATCOM data linkage to the aircraft in question available to them.

Hence, what I can tell you but this....>>IN A NUTSHELL<<...

9-11 was an >>INSIDE JOB<<
NYC WTC Twin Towers 1 & 2 were 'attacked' by REMOTELY CONTROLLED Boeing 757 and Boeing 767.
Whatever truly hit the Pentagon - and it wasn't a Boeing 757! - was under the REMOTE CONTROL of a Satcom capable/accessible ground controller(s).
And there was NO AIRCRAFT WHATSOVER that was plowed into Shanksville, PA.

- tocarm

"Fight to the death for truth - and the Lord God will war on your side."
- Ecclesiasticus

[skywatcher]

Dear Tocarm

Thank you for the explanation. I think I was confused by the terminology as well as the technology!

In order to remotely fly a plane, does there necessarily have to be a human operator in real time with a "simulator" or computer? Or can it be done "automatically", that is to say where everything is pre-programmed and therefore more accurate? Not sure if that is what MC was driving at.

If the latter is the case, it seems to me that only one or a few programmers (moles?) would be needed to execute the plan? Everybody else would have believed they were taking part in an exercise.

This wouldn't address the many questions about who may have known about it, supported it or covered it up.....and now I am right off topic here anyway!

To get back to engines for a moment, I am going to bug you with another question - is it possible for a particular model of aircraft to begin life with one make of engines, and for those engines to be changed for another make?

Once again thank you for your patience

Skywatcher

[tocarm]

Dear Skywalker,

Regarding SATCOM remote controlling an aircraft...

Consider the flight of a remotely controlled aircraft from Point A to Point B with all sorts of other 'waypoints' designated to be flown OVER during its sojourn from Point A to Point B as one would consider a COMPUTER PROGRAM.

I only know BASIC programming form my days taking assorted college courses - not for any particular degree requirements - just because I was interested in learning about the subject - so I can only use an example using BASIC program commands - but let me attempt to illustrate via text what I want to convey to and for you.

Aircraft X is launched without any human flight crew aboard (Autotake Off is a 'snap' - keep it straight on the runaway, deploy flaps to correct position, release the brakes, jam the throttles all the way forward - hit a certain speed - and simply GENTLY pull back on the control yoke (called "rotation")...and VIOLA!...you're flying...for how long, however, depends on your skills as HUMAN pilot <g> it's LANDING an aircraft that is the hard part! <g>) and is airborne having departed Point A.

The NEXT line in this Computer Program goes something like:

100 IF altitute = 1000 THEN turn to 180 degrees

The onboard FMC transmits this COMMAND to the Flight Control Computers which direct and control the flight control surfaces in such a way as to bring the aircraft around at 1000 ft altitude to 180 degrees (heading due South).

110 IF heading = 180 THEN cause Vertical Nav = 30 degrees

Plane pitches noise up to 30 degrees

120 IF VNAV = 30 degrees THEN reduce PLA to maintain 200 KIAS

and on and on it goes.

Plane reaches a certain altitude, maintains a certain airspeed, is vectored onto a certain heading UNTIL it flies over a certain WAYPOINT(S).

With each successful command obtained, there may be any number of 'GO TO' subroutines between in program lines 111, 112, 121, 122, etc.

NOW THEN - does one need a HUMAN ground controller to transmit/load this program "bits at a time" OR can the HUMAN ground controller DOWNLOAD the entire computer program's flight protocols all at ONE TIME.

The answer to that is BOTH - the HUMAN ground controller can "feed" the onboard FMC with updates/commands as often as he/she/they want to - changing and modifying the behavior of their aircraft in flight on a moment to moment basis - OR - they can load the entire flight's programming down ONCE - and the "forget it" - as in "Fire and Forget" military ordinance types such as 'smart ombs', 'rockets' and 'cruise missiles'.

With respect to CHANGING ENGINE TYPES on aircraft. Yep, that CAN BE DONE but would require extensive changes in and modifications to the various airframe structures such as the engine pylon, hyraulic lines, electrical wires, fuel lines, etc.
Weight and balance issues would have to be resolved. Sufficient nacelle ground clearance would have to be ensured/maintained.

Think about it in these terms - if you had a 1967 Coverette with a 350 cid engine and you wanted to installed a 427 cid, what "considerations" would you have to OBVIOUSLY look at with respect to your 1967 Corvette's chasis and engine compartment and electrical/fuel/cooling connections in order to INSTALL that 427 cid engine?

In closing - it CAN BE DONE - changing a B757 with PW2000's powering it so as to accept RB211s - and DOES GET DONE many a time with military aircraft. Consider the good old B-52 or KC-135. Started off with one type of engine and was refitted with newer/more powerful engines at later date.

In the civilian aviation field, I believe its the Cessna 210s that can be modified into accepting a much more powerful turboprop engine and which undergoes significant airframe modifications and systems upgrades to allow it to fly pressurized up to around 21,000 feet.

Takes time, material and of course money - but as long as one OBEYS the laws of physic and the laws of aerodynamics - you can pretty much "modify" just about any flying machine and morph it into a 'flying something else'! <g>

Regards,

- tocarm

[v2rot8]

Think about it in these terms - if you had a 1967 Coverette with a 350 cid engine and you wanted to installed a 427 cid, what "considerations" would you have to OBVIOUSLY look at with respect to your 1967 Corvette's chasis and engine compartment and electrical/fuel/cooling connections in order to INSTALL that 427 cid engine?

If I had a 1967 Corvette, I'd crap in my pants. It could have the engine of a Datsun B210 and I'd be ecstatic.

But, seriously, you just made sense out of something an FO told my friend regarding remote controlled 757s. It had to do with flying into JAC and mountains and stuff....

Do yo know what I'm talking about?

[tocarm]

Dear v2rot8,

I'm quite certain the FO who talked to your friend "knows all about" Control Display Units in cockpits/flight decks in virtually all models of contemporary commercial aircraft.

FYI - a short diddy on/about Control Display Units (CDUs):

http://www.outerlink.com/products-CDU.htm

If a flight attendent had one of these CDUs hooked up to the aircraft's avionics system in the AFT GALLEY, he/she/they could "remotely control" their aircraft from the AFT GALLEY.

If you had a 'CDU' hooked up to an aircraft's avionics system via the ARINC digital buses which, in turn, are connected to the SATCOM system - you could transmit CDU 'DIGITAL COMMANDS/INFORMATION' to the CDU via the ARINC data buses from ANYWHERES in the world with a Satellite Link Up ground station.

Think of CELL PHONES trasmitting text/data messages-information to just about ANYBODY on the face of earth who also has a CELL PHONE.

- tocarm

[tocarm]

Also v2rot8...

There is/are on-board aircraft computer(s) known for their functionality as 'eGPWS', or "Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System". This aviation computer technology is an out-growth from the various cruise-missile weapons systems such as 'GLCMs' (spoken of as 'glick-ems') - Ground Lauched Cruise Missiles - armed with both high explosives ordinance as well as tactical nuclear warheads.

Imagine the entire planet earth's surface (topography) mapped out with locations, heights and depths of mountains, canyons and other LARGE man made structures such as high radio antennas and whatnot - and this information is rendered into a digitized data base stored on a hard drive within the eGPWS computer on board commercial airliners.

By putting in either the GPS coordinates of an aircraft or aligning its location on planet earth using either Laser Gyro Inertial Reference Units or the older types of transducer IRUs - the aircraft can reference the types of terrain all around it AS it flies from Point A to Point B.

By integrating the flight plan within or given to the FMC along with the digitized terrain data base within the eGPWS computer - one can be alerted immediate, before take off, that there is going to be a 'collision' sometime at some future point in their flight plan.

FYI - some eGPWS links that might be of help to you:

http://avitop.com/cs/forums/thread/2795.aspx

http://www.honeywell.com/sites/aero/Egpws-Home.htm

- tocarm

[767doctor]

Plane reaches a certain altitude, maintains a certain airspeed, is vectored onto a certain heading UNTIL it flies over a certain WAYPOINT(S).

With each successful command obtained, there may be any number of 'GO TO' subroutines between in program lines 111, 112, 121, 122, etc.

NOW THEN - does one need a HUMAN ground controller to transmit/load this program "bits at a time" OR can the HUMAN ground controller DOWNLOAD the entire computer program's flight protocols all at ONE TIME.

......Or you could just program the FMC for LNAV/VNAV and use custom waypoints(or even existing waypoints), but you'd need to feed the FMC/FCCs GPS position instead of IRS as IRS would cause you to miss your target by a few hundred meters. You could also use ACARS(VHF) over SATCOM. Its cheaper!!

[tocarm]

Well...that has been my assertion since 9/11/2001 - that it was SATCOM and not 19 Arab hijackers who pulled off 9/11.

Informed the US Senate and US Congressional committees on Aviation, other Federal Law Enforcement (FBI), State Government officials, US Army and Air Force National Guard Commanding Officers...US Attorneys...la de da...who else? Media, Civic, Religious organizations - Boeing schematics and maintenance manual extracts included.

"Nothing"

"Pretenders who believe they don't know and didn't see anything"

There is no such thing as a "United States of America"...

"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars, forgers and murderers." - Charles Peguy

The USA: It's all a 'Political Puppet Show' put on for the relentless entertainment for 250+ million "kiddies" set in front of their T.V. sets - for those don't have their eyes (and minds) glued to the 'other' T.V. channel's "Civic Programming" featuring 'AMERICAN IDOL' or that other T.V. channel with 'N.F.L. games'.

And ALL of the US commerical airline pilots just keep on flying day in and day out like "nothing happened" back on 9-11-2001. They could have SHUT DOWN this entire 9-11 Criminal Mass Murdering Cabal in Washington D.C. way back when - saved the Middle East from going up in the Smoke & DU of War - brought the D.C. Crime Gang to justice by simply REFUSING to serve aboard Boeing aircraft.

- tocarm

This post has been edited by tocarm: Jan 18 2007, 08:01 PM