How Loony are the Loons?

"beachnut - No the system cannot be programmed to do what you say it can. I doubt the 186 and the 1st grade level programming can help your poor attempt at trying to make up fiction.

There are countless ways the pilot can control the plane you know not of."

OK smart guy.... Then how in the world does a plane fly on autopilot?????

If the plane can fly it's self, then something must be controlling it.... That would be SOFTWARE!!!!! YES, software can be modified or have the code in place already.

By all means, tell us what your EMBEDDED programming, or C/C++ programming experience is???? Since you think that this is not possible, please explain how this is not possible..... How can a thread not be created in a subroutine that will over ride any actions take by the pilots..... Please explain!
 
"TjW - You know, it's a funny world. I write embedded code too. Curiously enough, I too have written code for 186s, Zilog Z80s, Z8s, 8052s , Motorola 6805s, even the ancient RCA 1802.
Yet I'm still not experienced enough to write code that will work when I pull the circuit breakers that supply power to the processor."

That's an ASSUMPTION that the MAIN circuit breaker is available to the pilots. Do they have access to the MAIN computer???? I would doubt that! I would believe that they have access to many of the sub-components, but not the MAIN computer. Having access to the main computer is not logical. Having access to some of the sub components is logical. Such as radios, and some of the other electronic systems. I doubt they have any direct access to the system that controls the Auto Pilot.
 
...Why are people still talking to this guy? He has disobeyed the rules of this board numerous times and doesn't bring anything relevant to the table.
 
"beachnut - But we can model the WTC failure. You can not model the CT idiot ideas.

I always have terrible spelling and can barely make a sentence make sence when I read it! But you sound like a CT broken record.

Try some facts next time."

Fine, show me the COMPUTER simulation you performed...... Show me the models, and snapshots of the simulation to prove your case. I want to see that those models were not modified to fit the result.

I am in a industry that uses SIMULATION quite extensively, and we never modify the models to match the end result because there are to many other factors involved to do that which will create HUGE issues. For one, if there was a process issue for the one batch we just screwed up the entire FUTURE product because when the process is fixed, the models are wrong and so will the product be.

So again..... Show me the computer simulations and model to support your case.
 
Quad4_72 said:
...Why are people still talking to this guy? He has disobeyed the rules of this board numerous times and doesn't bring anything relevant to the table.
Click to expand...
What he said. Makes me wonder who is out of control here, RB or all his interlocutors. Worse than that, of course, is the question of why the hell am I following it all?
 
RemoveBush said:
"beachnut - No the system cannot be programmed to do what you say it can. I doubt the 186 and the 1st grade level programming can help your poor attempt at trying to make up fiction.

There are countless ways the pilot can control the plane you know not of."

OK smart guy.... Then how in the world does a plane fly on autopilot?????

If the plane can fly it's self, then something must be controlling it.... That would be SOFTWARE!!!!! YES, software can be modified or have the code in place already.

By all means, tell us what your EMBEDDED programming, or C/C++ programming experience is???? Since you think that this is not possible, please explain how this is not possible..... How can a thread not be created in a subroutine that will over ride any actions take by the pilots..... Please explain!
Click to expand...

I have programmed machine language, pascal, fortran, basic, and more! I have used computers since 1970 on! What makes you an expert, you sound like a kid who watched one too many movies on CT junk! I am a computer and electrical engineer! You talk crap and you have no clue what you would do to take control of a 757/767 and you ignore the FDR shows you wrong; there was no remote control of the flights.

The autopilot is engaged by the pilot! does not come on by itself, it is a separate system that flies the plane from inputs the pilot decides to use; ie INS/NAV/HDG select, you need to study this a few years and then maybe you can talk to others and explain to yourself why you are a loon today.

The autopilot can not be run remotely; the plane can not be flown by changing code! You are short on facts! If you can explain how it can happen for real, by component, then someone would listen. But you are making up stuff as you go!

I have programmed voice controls for the Air Force in studies for cockpit research. I have flown jet for the Air Force; you are not very good at making up remote control junk; you have not studied it; you have not solved the problem. I have programmed embed programs to to send voice data to the system computer so voice could be integrated into the cockpit. I was the manager for our small lab so we could study concepts for voice integration. I worked with other on flight control systems. I worked in the darn Flight Control Lab for the Air Force.

I have enough knowledge just to summary dismiss your ideas as trash, junk, loon ideas. This is because the Air Force sent me to school so I could oversee people and know when they are full of BS like you. I was paid by our tax dollars not to waste money on fools like you and I succeeded. Your parents have wasted their money for your education which failed.

You have failed to show how anyone can take a 767/757 and control it. You can not even tell me how you will keep an alert pilot from shutting off the engines and bringing your idiot ideas of control to a soft landing at a 3 degree glide slope.
 
That's an ASSUMPTION that the MAIN circuit breaker is available to the pilots
Click to expand...

With the above statement, you just proved to us you didn't read Apathoids paper which addressed that. No matter how many times you capitalize EMBEDDED CODE or SUBROUTINE it wont work without power even if you had the time to bypass fuse busses which they didn't. The planes were never taken out of service before 9/11 long enough to rewire the entire plane. You lose. Your fantasy is just that. From here on in you will be on ignore. You have yet to provide evidence other than conjecture and speculation. you have failed to convince a single person.

I am in a industry that uses SIMULATION quite extensively
Click to expand...

Child. Your doing a poor job of simulating brain activity. Now put the GI joes and model planes down, and grow TF up.
 
Last edited:
"stateofgrace - Remove bush

here is a question for you and I'm sure will have no problem answering it.

If all the calls were from the planes were impossible as many of you ct guys believe it to be how did they remotely control the same planes?"

First not ALL the calls were impossible.... Only the CELL phones. The air phones would work, but you would need a credit card. Which is why one of the phone calls is too hard to swallow, because her husband states he accepted a COLLECT call from her. The phones would not work that way.

"stateofgrace - How come phone signals from the planes were impossible yet signals to the planes to remotely control them was possible?

I know it is a software thing, but maybe you could explain it simply for us hammers and spanners guys."

Very good question.... Since several eye witnesses state that they saw a large white plane near the places where the crashes were, it is POSSIBLE that AWACs was used.

As for the code, it could be something like this. If a signal is received with a code of "0xff5555ff", then perhaps this code jumps to a subroutine that would ignore or disable the ability for any manual control to happen. Since the computer gives control back when the pilots throw a switch or push on the yoke, this would be ignored. Maybe the code would look like this:

If (over_ride)
{
continue;
}
else
{
Do normal stuff here.
}

Of course it would be more complex than this, but it would be the same principle.

Does this help?
 
RemoveBush said:
This does not matter to you, because in YOUR world people only THINK and look like you. Otherwise, they are "kooks" and "crazies".

So then I guess you don't believe in god? Because there is ZERO proof that there is a god. There is nothing other than a book written by man. So if you say you believe in god, then you could be labeled "crazy" for in something you can't prove and no one has been able to prove.

God forbid you should actually have to be held to the same standards. But then again, you people have your own standards when it comes to what you WANT to be true. You make everything ABSOLUTE, just like people did over 300 years ago when they were SURE that the world was flat!
Click to expand...

I think you will find that most of the people here don't believe in God for the very reasons you state.

You would be the one behaving like a flat Earth believer. Even when presented with evidence(real facts not speculation) you continue to cling to your irrational beliefs in evil government conspiracies.
You are the one who is SURE that WTC7 was a CD because it looks like one(to you, not to experts).

You are the one asserting that 767s can be modified to remote control without lots of people being involved, despite having the impossibilities of this pointed out to you numerous times.

You are the one who thinks in ABSOLUTES about all this stuff. You say that governments did bad stuff before, therefore it is absolutely positive that they committed atrocities on 9/11.

You ignore anything which contradicts your conclusions and then accuse others of your own errors.

A very poor show in my opinion.
 
RemoveBush said:
"beachnut - Why debate it; you have proved it!

How loony are the loons? You have proved it! Very Loony!

Questions? (hint: loons do not use the quote button)"

Again with more attacks...... Why do I need to reward you or anyone here for attacking people????

I guess ANYONE who does not believe like you are "loons". I can see that you are a RACIST AND A BIGGOT! You would kick a black man for being black and call the the "N" word. You would call any mexican a dirty name just because of their color of thier skin.... Even though they may very well be TRUE American Citizens.....

This does not matter to you, because in YOUR world people only THINK and look like you. Otherwise, they are "kooks" and "crazies".

So then I guess you don't believe in god? Because there is ZERO proof that there is a god. There is nothing other than a book written by man. So if you say you believe in god, then you could be labeled "crazy" for in something you can't prove and no one has been able to prove.

God forbid you should actually have to be held to the same standards. But then again, you people have your own standards when it comes to what you WANT to be true. You make everything ABSOLUTE, just like people did over 300 years ago when they were SURE that the world was flat!
Click to expand...

Are you a loon calling people bigots cause they see you have no facts?

Why do you call people bigots when you have no facts on the subject; any subject?

Sorry, but you can model anything; and you prove it by saying you do it! I do not understand how you can debunk your own statements in one quick post! Do you?

Thanks for calling me a bigot without facts it makes me understand why you can not use the quote button. Do you understand?

Beachnut the bigot sentenced by the flat earth witch hunting RemoveBush how has become the stuff of his name.

I find your bigot statement to be false and short on facts; would this make you a loon?

This topic is how loony can the loons be!

I think calling someone a bigot and what you said I say is loony; you have shown once again how loony loons can be.

Good job.
 
RemoveBush said:
Very good question.... Since several eye witnesses state that they saw a large white plane near the places where the crashes were, it is POSSIBLE that AWACs was used.

As for the code, it could be something like this. If a signal is received with a code of "0xff5555ff", then perhaps this code jumps to a subroutine that would ignore or disable the ability for any manual control to happen. Since the computer gives control back when the pilots throw a switch or push on the yoke, this would be ignored. Maybe the code would look like this:

If (over_ride)
{
continue;
}
else
{
Do normal stuff here.
}

Of course it would be more complex than this, but it would be the same principle.

Does this help?
Click to expand...

Sorry AWACS was not in on 9/11. I was in the Air Force at the time and we did not do it! (spent many years at Tinker, you think a top secret clearance is enough to know you are wrong again? Real experts stuff)

Could you be wrong?

Your code, not good enough; you left off the components you would put it in.

What are you qualifications as a programmer (they would help)?

Why do you call people bigots?

When will you ever get on topic; it is how loony are the loons?
 
Last edited:
"apathoid - 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."

The evidence you provided as precidence was for a "737", and I'm sure a 757/767 is a little more advanced...... I have contacted a friend who works for US Air to get his input, as he is Fully licensed to maintain these aircraft and can name them from the ground by thier engine sounds.

Assuming that this is true, still does not mean that this scenerio could not happen. For example, if the government knew of it and which planes as they had been monitoring these guys for some time according to official records, then they would allow them to take the plane. Then they would enter the code to take control. The "hijackers" would not know what to do since they WERE NOT proffesional pilots.

So, to your ABSOLUTE statement I say there are other options. That is why we need A REAL INVESTIGATION!

You have been asked via PM at least once to use the quote function. If you continue to not use the quote function, I will view this as an attempt to disrupt the Forum and you will treated accordingly.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The round world and the square head...

DarkMagician said:
This is among the dumbest times to play the race card.



The people knew the world was round for much more than 300 years (actually, around BC times it was common knowledge). Heliocentrism is the concept that was hard for the middle ages to grasp. Is this another example of your "common sense"?
Click to expand...

Hmmm...he's bothered by my questioning his anti-Semitism, but has no problem accusing others of racism.

As I recall, Archimedes proved the world was round, because he did the math on the distance from Alexandria to Syene, and the angle of the sun at both places at noon, and worked out that Earth's roundness, falling only 57 miles off, not realizing the planet is flattened slightly at both poles. That was in ancient Greece thousands of years ago.

And that settled the issue for the rest of time, except for Reverend Voliva and his Flat-Earth outfit just north of Chicago.
 
IDW RemoveBush, you might want to try actually reading Apathoid's paper before you pull any more "facts" out of your nethers.

Y'see, it contains some interesting diagrams straight outta the Boeing technical documentation Apathoid works with every day. The one you most want to see is "Monkey Motion" on page 11, which illustrates the arrangement of the roll control system, and the text surrounding it.

What I get from it is that the pilot's controls operate cables which control hydraulic actuators which provide the "oomph" needed to move the cables which in turn control the hydraulic actuators that actually move the ailerons. Autopilot inputs are introduced at the LCCAs, the first hydraulic actuator I spoke of.

Simply put, the autopilot can't interrupt the pilots' connection to the control surfaces because it isn't between the pilot controls and the control surfaces. If all three FCCs went rogue, they could "fight" the pilots' inputs, but the pilots could still gain the upper hand by an escalating series of moves beginning with shutting off the power to the FCCs and ending with shutting off all the generators and disconnecting the battery. Apathoid provides evidence that a 757/767 can still be flown without any electrical power at all, although it wouldn't be fun.

As for your contention that pulling the circuit breakers wouldn't power down the computers or their control servos, if the plane was designed and manufactured like that, someone would notice the first time they shut off one of those systems to work on it and unexpectedly found it still live. If the plane were modified/sabotaged to accomplish that, the conspirators would be running a grave risk of discovery.

You obviously know nothing about technicians. First, troubleshooting a system requires that we understand what it's supposed to do and how it accomplishes that in some detail. You want to remember that. Second, we're a curious bunch; discrepancies between what the documentation says should happen and what we actually observe draw our intense attention. I don't work on airplanes, I work on professional audio recording equipment, but I can assure you that if I shut off a channel bay on an SSL console to work on a module and found that the power was still on, I'd be crawling over the power distribution system to figure out what was going on. I've found mistakes in service documentation before; corrected 'em in our copies and reported them to the manufacturer as well. I've even, in over twenty years in the electronics industry, had the opportunity to discover, analyze and cure a couple of really stupid design mistakes in products I worked on, and saw something done about them as well. I've also found a lot of user mods, traced them, diagrammed them, and understood them. Ain't never been fooled into thinking a mod was factory.

It's been obvious for some time that your claims to be an engineer are the old phonus balonus. Now it's also clear that you aren't a techie, either.

It's true that in the movies a guy can take over all the traffic lights in downtown L.A. by tapping on a laptop, and there's nothing any of the people responsible for that system can do to intervene, but the movies are not a good source of information about how real-world technology works. Misusing words like "embedded code" in your babbling won't change the reality of how those planes are actually built.

It is amusing to see how closely you follow the script, IDW RemoveBush.

Dance, kook, dance.
 
RemoveBush said:
The evidence you provided as precidence was for a "737", and I'm sure a 757/767 is a little more advanced...... I have contacted a friend who works for US Air to get his input, as he is Fully licensed to maintain these aircraft and can name them from the ground by thier engine sounds.

Assuming that this is true, still does not mean that this scenerio could not happen. For example, if the government knew of it and which planes as they had been monitoring these guys for some time according to official records, then they would allow them to take the plane. Then they would enter the code to take control. The "hijackers" would not know what to do since they WERE NOT proffesional pilots.

So, to your ABSOLUTE statement I say there are other options. That is why we need A REAL INVESTIGATION!
Click to expand...
I keep on hearing creaking at my house at night. While I think this is the house settling or other people in the house walking around, it could possibly be Da Boogey Man. Therefore, I demand an investigation into my house!
 
Aye, he's 28th and he's got me on ignore. I mean, at the very least I expected him to ask what "feart" means! :p

Happy New Year from Scotland, everyone. I'd be out partying barring this damned pneumonia, so you all make sure and have one for me.....
 
Just occurred to me. why would the gubmint bother to reconfigure a 757 or 767 for remote control when there are already some planes that are already configured for fly by wire?

debunked
next
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom