How Loony are the Loons?

RemoveBush said:
"pomeroo - RB, please read Apathoid's paper (see link below) and tell us what he gets wrong. I may be only person here who is not in on the joke, but Apathoid has demonstrated, in painstaking detail, why the planes that hit the WTC could not have been flown by remote control. Perhaps the regulars are tired of hammering fantasists on this subject. I joined the forum in October and have missed much of the good stuff. Again, RB, your entire house of cards collapses into its own footprint (snicker) if real jihadists hijacked real planes. Show us what Apathoid is missing. I don't even require use of the quote button.

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf"

I have read it, and I have addressed it already.....

He does know the mechanicals and electrical parts of the plane. But does he know how the EMBEDDED code works, or how it can be updated?? Does he know that EMBEDDED code, especially by a plane that is run largely on it, can be modified to over ride ANY input manually?

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to know that EMBEDDED code can be changed. This is REALITY! I have written embedded code for x186, ZILOG, MOTOROLA, 8052, and the 8088. Not just SIMPLE code.... Very complex and soffisicated code for use to test very complexly populated boards.
Click to expand...

Apathoid has adressed this and is very clear why you are wrong

apathoid said:
Christ on a popcicle, did you even read the damn essay? If you had, you might've seen where I mentioned that you can kill the entire electrical system and still fly the plane. How is your embedded software gonna work without power?

Also, I made it pretty clear that the 767 is not a fly-by-wire airplane, which means that the "software"(which is actually hardware generated data in a DITS format called ARINC 429) only has control of the airplane when autopilot is engaged.

You might also have read where I pointed out that the airplanes position determining system(called IRS) is only accurate to about a mile plus the initial poition entry error which could be as much as another mile.

How about you at least google some information about the 767 flight control system and avionics(or read my pdf) before trying to have a debate with someone who has forgotten more about these systems then you will ever know.
Click to expand...

How can embedded code over ride manual controls? When the auto pilot is off the software that controls the positioning of the plane is off, it is out of the loop.

I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong, but from what I see it is totally irrelevant what extra embedded code was put into the planes software, because it can simply be over ridden by switching off the auto pilot. This would make perfect sense since during an emergency a pilot would take control of the plane manually.

Again from what I read it seems the auto piloting system is not that accurate to be able to fly a plane into a specific target, it would have to be done manually. So if embedded code was controlling the planes position how did they manage to fly it into a building?
 
Last edited:
babazaroni said:
As an embedded developer myself, I know there are plenty of small niches these folks can exist in. Writing test software is pretty simple, primitive and boring. No spelling skills needed as the compiler, assembler or linker will flag any errors they cause.
Click to expand...
Roger that, BBZ.

I was reacting, primarily, to this particular claim of BrushRemover's:

"Not just SIMPLE code.... Very complex and soffisicated code for use to test very complexly populated boards."

Self-debunking. A person who wrote very complex and sophisticated code for use in testing very complex, highly populated boards would never have stated it in such a sloppy and slovenly manner.

Your passage - look at how concise, clear and compact it is. Mark of someone who knows structured coding and thrives in the field.
 
Paging Apathoid

RemoveBush said:
"Dr. Lao - Just a note on load factors and such, as it is an area I actually am an expert in.


"Dr. Lao - As for gassing passengers, LOL, that is straight out of Sci-Fi."

Really???? So at 30,000 ft, what happens if the AIR is shut off and the cabin is no longer pressurized???? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


"Non airline people have zero clue about planes. Every single item on that plane, from a reading lamp light bulb to the button to recline your seat has a number and is tracked and whenever any mechanical work is done on any part of the plane, its cataloged and entered into the records. The stupid idea that somehow the evil government folks could sneak onto a plane while its on RON and install, test and then somehow conceal an elaborate gassing system, or a remote control flying system in the cockpit, without a single person noticing it is so far into the realm of sci fi, that it shouldn't even dignify a response."

Really???? You don't think that someone could do any of this??? I do recal hearing many stories of people actually gaining access to sensitive area's well before 9/11. They don't have to do anything but, upload a MODIFIED version of the control code for the plane. When a signal is recieved, the code will run the special code that COULD lock out all routines that would allow the pilots or anyone else to over ride the controlls. Since EVERYTHING on those 767 planes are computer controlled, this is realitively easy.

"Dr. Lao - But, we are talking about CT losers, who are out of touch with reality........."

So then I guess you believe in god???

You see, there's more than one possibility to everything until it has been proven 100% by science.
Click to expand...



Apathoid, shouldn't you be saying something hereabouts? He really, really isn't getting it. The Boeing Corporation is complicit in mass murder, and their motive would be...?
 
RemoveBush said:
Notice that it did NOT fall over, but rather FELL STRAIGHT DOWN! What took out the base to allow this part to do that? With an object of that wieght and hieght, this would have fell over, not straight down.

Care to explain this?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The structure is designed to handle loads acting in specific planes (no pun intended), including the steel connections - be they welded or bolted. Generally these will be vertical, but there are of course issues about horizontal loadings for wind and the like.

As the structure begins to fail, two things happen:

1. The structure does not move uniformly (look at the videos), so a number of the connections will shear very quickly in the collapse process and compromise overall structural stability of the "falling" section.

2. As soon as any rotation away from vertical occurs, design loadings on the structural elements and joints will be exceeded and they will fail. At this point, gravity will take over and the debris will move straight down, together with any minor allowances for momentum and the like.

Satisfied?
 
Architect said:
Yes.

The structure is designed to handle loads acting in specific planes (no pun intended), including the steel connections - be they welded or bolted. Generally these will be vertical, but there are of course issues about horizontal loadings for wind and the like.

As the structure begins to fail, two things happen:

1. The structure does not move uniformly (look at the videos), so a number of the connections will shear very quickly in the collapse process and compromise overall structural stability of the "falling" section.

2. As soon as any rotation away from vertical occurs, design loadings on the structural elements and joints will be exceeded and they will fail. At this point, gravity will take over and the debris will move straight down, together with any minor allowances for momentum and the like.

Satisfied?
Click to expand...

A good response if he was referring to the overall structure. But given his refusal to use the quote function, this is not easily shown.

From my recollection, he was referring to that last thin section of core steel that stood 10-20 seconds after the rest of the building collapsed.

He is under the impression that this bit of the core fell vertically because explosives cut out it's base, then just stood there stuck in the debris for a short time.

It makes no sense to try to have a conversation with him given his refusal to use tools which aid the conversation.
 
Last edited:
RemoveBush said:
UNTIL YOU grow up and start debating, I will continue using the cut and paste... It works just fine and it is still VERY readable.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Little RemoveBush; plus find a fact; you refuse to use the quote button makes you a poor little kid who can not change or grow up. (you code stuff is refuted by the FDR, no funny stuff, no remote control; bet you did not see the FDR stuff yet; poor little RB)

You can't grow up; you can not learn to use the quote button.

You failed to figure out the quote button.

You are always wrong and you are wrong about your post being readable; they are not!

Are you learning impaired?

Are you fact challenged?

Or just a loon? (you are the answer to the thread)

RemoveBush is the personification of this thread!

But RB; what is you take on "How Loony are the Loons?"

Is ignoring the quote button a loony thing? RB?
 
Last edited:
He thinks his posts are very readable. That's like myself being able to read my own terrible handwriting but other people cannot.
 
T.A.M. said:
Re: Judy woods connection:

perhaps an reincarnation of TS1234, he was really into Judy wasnt he...havent seen him here in a while...ACE Baker wasnt he?

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Judy would :)

Reading how alot of you put this guy on ignore. I feel like an idiot for not taking your advice :(
 
LashL said:
And he was really into photographs of macroscopic concrete, too.

Lash :)
Click to expand...

Just don't post that evil NWO skull face :)

This is my new preemptive pic post...good strategy?

8790452ce91847140.jpg


BTW, this is a hijack...

879045627a2870bd1.jpg
 
"How loony are the loons?"

As loony as Mr L. Loony of Loonyville when he won the biggest loony in Loonyland contest.
 
"apathoid - Even if you think the airlines were "in on it" - converting the airplanes would take quite a long time and after the work was complete, the changes would be obvious to pilots, line maintenance mechanics, the aircrafts maintenance monitering systems, and the master caution/warning system(for those that read my pdf, the master warning system differs from EICAS and I really totally neglected to talk about it) .

RemoveBush - If you disagree, I'm all ears......"

I have already answered this, but here goes again...

It is NOT DIFFICULT! The ONLY thing that needs modifying, if the option is not already there, is to alter the EMBEDDED code controlling the main computer. When the pilot tries to take control the system does not relinquish it..... SIMPLE!!

It's called a SUBROUTINE!
 
Since these systems were not fly-by-wire, the pilot could just power down the computers or just reset to regain control.
 
RemoveBush said:
Really? Let's just look at those people YOU are calling nuts, shall we?
Click to expand...
If they believe in lunatic CT bs then simply put, they are nuts. Their past doesn't make their CT ideas any more valid than any others. They are in the same CT lunatic class as uncle Fetzer and Judy woowoo Wood.
 
"stateofgrace - So where was this program put into the plane. A program that can enact a special code that ignores manual controls?

Exactly which system onboard the planes were reprogrammed to ignore manual commands?

Please can you explain exactly what you are suggesting here?

Are you saying that embedded code was pre-programmed into the planes computer control systems that would enable external commands to be issued to the plane that would over ride manual commands?

If so who was making the manual commands?

Was there anybody onboard these planes, in the cockpit to make manual commands?"

Cart before the horse attitude again!

I am showing that your ABSOLUTE statement that there is no way to fly it remotely is bogus..... Do you know what the EMBEDDED code commands are and do you have the embedded code available????? Probably NOT! Boeing could have placed a SUBROUTINE in the software to allow for control to be taken if something happens to the piliots.....

It is NOT far fetched to think that this is a possibility... If the plane can fly it's self, then it is EASY to ignore manual commands from the flight deck and allow the plane to continue to take commands from a remote location. They can send signals and text messages to the plane and pilots, it IS NOT out of reasoning to think that they could also place a code in the signal that would activate the SUBROUTINE!

As for who could have been controlling the plane??? I don't know, but SEVERAL eye witnesses seen a LARGE WHITE plane flying in most of crash areas on 9/11. Could have been an AWAC plane?

I am saying that YOUR ABSOLUTE attitude is getting old. There ARE other options that do make just as much sense. They do open up other questions, but first basic questions need to be addressed.

Prove that those were the planes by the TRACEABLE parts. This is a FIRST step.
 
Paging Apathoid

RemoveBush said:
"stateofgrace - So where was this program put into the plane. A program that can enact a special code that ignores manual controls?

Exactly which system onboard the planes were reprogrammed to ignore manual commands?

Please can you explain exactly what you are suggesting here?

Are you saying that embedded code was pre-programmed into the planes computer control systems that would enable external commands to be issued to the plane that would over ride manual commands?

If so who was making the manual commands?

Was there anybody onboard these planes, in the cockpit to make manual commands?"

Cart before the horse attitude again!

I am showing that your ABSOLUTE statement that there is no way to fly it remotely is bogus..... Do you know what the EMBEDDED code commands are and do you have the embedded code available????? Probably NOT! Boeing could have placed a SUBROUTINE in the software to allow for control to be taken if something happens to the piliots.....

It is NOT far fetched to think that this is a possibility... If the plane can fly it's self, then it is EASY to ignore manual commands from the flight deck and allow the plane to continue to take commands from a remote location. They can send signals and text messages to the plane and pilots, it IS NOT out of reasoning to think that they could also place a code in the signal that would activate the SUBROUTINE!

As for who could have been controlling the plane??? I don't know, but SEVERAL eye witnesses seen a LARGE WHITE plane flying in most of crash areas on 9/11. Could have been an AWAC plane?

I am saying that YOUR ABSOLUTE attitude is getting old. There ARE other options that do make just as much sense. They do open up other questions, but first basic questions need to be addressed.

Prove that those were the planes by the TRACEABLE parts. This is a FIRST step.
Click to expand...


The guy has a "Kick Me Hard" sign on his back. Don't disappoint the fans.

He IS saying that the Boeing Corporation is complicit in mass murder.
 
"defaultdotxbe - but if theres any kind of physical override theres no program that can keep working

yes, you can do a lot with software, but ultimately hardware can and will always take precedence, you cant program a computer to keep running after you unplug it"

Physical over ride is allowed, or granted by the computer. If a computer is controlling the plane, it allows the pilots to take back over through the many sensors that it uses to determine that the pilot wants to take back control. If the SUBROUTINE prevents this take back of control, what are the pilots going to do?????

Your analogy of a computer being turned off is pretty lame... The control computer is NOT turned off. If it was to be turned off, then the pilots would STRUGGLE to fly the plane. The computer HELPS to keep the plane flying correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom