|
The 767 is a trusty workhorse used by airlines the world over. It comes in three types, the 200, 300 and 400 series with increasing fuselage length and increasing capacity. The one shown here is the very same N612UA that took off from Logan airport that fateful 11 September. Note its stubby nose, characteristic of the 200 series. The inset shows the plane that crashed into the South Tower later that day. Somehow, to me, the fuselage seems just that little bit longer. Perspective is a tricky thing, so let's have a look at the scale plans for the 767 below. |
Paper links 1984, George Orwell The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Der Zauberlehrling), Johann Wolfgang von Goethe The Emperor's New Clothes, Hans Christian Andersen |
|
|
|
Flight Control SystemsUm... OK. So the planes were switched. Why go to all that trouble? I must admit that I was a bit befuddled myself.Boeing has been developing some pretty snazzy flight control systems over the years. Maybe something more sophisticated than a 767-200 was required for the job. The Aviation Safety Network, Accident Description database gives quite a detailed description of all the planes that have suffered some misshap over the years. And there's our old friend N612UA, showing that it entered service in 1983. (It also shows that it was a 767-222, and not a 200ER as is sometimes mistakenly claimed. This is also borne out in the FAA registry.) Cross checking with Jane's shows that the first 767-200 was delivered on 8 September 1982. So poor old N612UA was already getting a bit long in the tooth by 11 September. Next stop Rockwell (now part of the Boeing group of companies). They produce the FCS-700 flight control system, "currently provided as standard equipment on all versions of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft", so maybe not going back to 1983, and N612UA, the Cinderella of the fleet, would likely be the last in line for updating. However the FCS-700 is just a fancy "fail operational autopilot flight director system", I suppose you could pre-program it but it would fly in a smooth line, not bank crazily into the South Tower as we've seen. Another cute gadget is the Flight Management Computer System, also Boeing standard equipment. The page for the 757-200 describes this as: "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." And "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." Gee whiz. What does the pilot get to do then? Chat up the ladies? And they're pretty good at this "automatic guidance and control". Another nifty little piece of 50s Sci-Fi is Global Hawk by Northrop Gruman, a 737-size fully unmanned experimental plane. This baby's maiden flight was from Edwards Air Force Base, CA on 28 February 1998 [Federation of American Scientists], making it all the way to Australia on April 24, 2001, by itself [International Television News (defunct)]. "The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," according to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith [International Television News (Defunct. But, Hey! This is the world-wide web. See mirror copy)]. Mind you, that's a military plane. Commercial airliners are different, aren't they? Well... can't get a date, but NASA's 'Flying Lab' ARIES, a converted Boeing 757-200, is reputed to have also taken off and landed without a pilot at the helm a few times. Apparently the skies are getting crowded and you'd get greater efficiency by having your planes radar controlled. You could also layoff a few more air-traffic controllers too. It's not the pipe-dream it sounds, either. After 9/11, what with Middle-Eastern gentlemen being able to hijack planes and fly them with military precision, there was a lot of talk of "... including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control." Needless to say, pilots aren't too happy with the idea of someone off-board taking control of their ship, whoever it is. What if that someone was a "Middle-Eastern gentleman"? [Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots. Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2001] Even Robert Ayling, former boss of British Airways, got in on the act and "... suggested in the Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack... " [The Economist, September 20, 2001] |
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley Our Man in Havana, Graham Greene Absolute Friends, John le Carré Hyper links 9/11 Review The Web Fairy, various videos of the events of 9/11 The Incredible 9/11 Evidence we've All been Overlooking, Leonard Spencer 9/11 was a Hoax, John Kaminsky Operation Pearl (long), A. K. Dewdney Blix doubts on Iraq intelligence - BBC Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President, Neil Mackay This war is not yet over, Jonathan Freedland The Petro-Dollar Wars, Senator Tim Ferguson September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows Our links page |
Conclusions so farThis may all a bit seem circumstantial, but let's see what we have here:
|
ConfirmationAccording to Andreas von Bülow, the former German Secretary of Defence, it seems that, already back in the nineties, "a major European flag carrier" was so alarmed when it discovered that the flight control systems on its aircraft could be taken over electronically from the ground, that it "completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version". [Tagesspiegel, Berlin, January 13th 2002]. It appears that this "major European flag carrier" was none other than Lufthansa, the German national airline.Of course, Germans are a bunch of wimps who'd only too happily lick the boots of an invading army of "Middle-Eastern gentlemen". Yet, one fine day in 2002, it just so happens that a group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand Pré, set up an independent inquiry into the events of September 11th, and came to the conclusion that "the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft." (...) An expert witness confirmed that "airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level." Colonel Donn de Grand Pré's inquiry concluded: "They [the pilots] had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft." [September 11 - US Government accused. The News, Portugal's Weekend Newspaper in English, 03/08/2002 (well worth the read)]. The article also goes on to lament the lack of investigative zeal on the subject by mainstream American (and may I add British) news media. Oh, and by the way, a pilot's ingrained reaction is to "ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground". Fine ..., but do we have any conclusive visual proof that Flight 175 had been tampered with? I'm glad you asked that...
|
Flight 175
|
Too Hot | Override | Wrong Plane | Odd Bumps | Conclusions | Not Flight 175 | Rebuttals | Photos through various filters |