How Loony are the Loons?

pomeroo said:
So, RB, just to be clear: When Boeing rep Liz Verdier states for the record that Boeing 757s and 767s cannot be flown by remote control, she is carrying out orders to lie. The Boeing Corporation is therefore complicit in mass murder. Right?
Click to expand...

Ron,

I think you'll find that just about everyone on the planet is complicit. But I would definitely like to see him weazle his way out of this one :)
 
RemoveBush said:
"Regnad Kcin - Groody gumdrops. Funny how the FCC abolished the First and Third Class licenses in the 1980s."

REALLY????

Then I guess you better tell the FCC that they are committing FRUAD!
http://wireless.fcc.gov/commoperators/t3.html

"The Third Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate is issued for a period of five (5) years." Notice how NOW you must re-apply for the license. If a person still holds an original license, such as myself, then this one is always valid until it is lost (as it must be displayed at the operation at all times).

They did in fact reduce the REQUIREMENTS to allow 3rd party testing for an FCC 1st Class equivilent license. Hence my statement of having an "EQUIVILENT" FCC license.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel with you people.
Click to expand...

RemoveBush said:
"apathoid - As Conspirator noted, he did say "equivalent" license. I have absolutely no idea what an FCC 1st class equivalent license is or how you might get one. The FCC lists these as available licenses."

I guess the state of californial knows what it means, and just because you don't know something does not mean that it is not factual or possible:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...t+license+n.a.b.e.r&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12
"Possession of at least ONE valid certificate or license certified by the Department of General Services, Telecommunications Division, and industry accepted, qualifying the person to perform transmitter installation, operation, maintenance, and repair duties. Those certificates and licenses currently certified by the Telecommunications Division for meeting this qualification are:

1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]FCC General Radiotelephone Operator License.
2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]FCC 1st Class or 2nd Class Radiotelegraph Operator’s Certificate.
3.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]NABER Two-Way Radio Technician Certificate.
4.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]APCO Two Way Radio Technician Certificate.
5.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]NARTE Technician or Engineer Certificate with Applicable Job Specifications Endorsement (s).
6.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]DGS, Telecommunications Division, Technician Certification Program."


Or mabye this?
http://www.actransit.org/pdf/job_classes/job_class_222.pdf
"License/Certification: Must possess and maintain a current FCC Second Class or General Radio Telephone
license OR a NABER (National Association of Business and Education Radio) OR an APCO (Associated Public
Safety Communications Offices) certificate . Must possess and maintain a valid California Class C Driver’s
License and meet the District’s driving standards."
Click to expand...

And my response to your poorly formatted posts above:

As technology rapidly changed transmitters required less skill to manage. In the spirit of deregulation the FCC yield progressively more of its control over broadcasters, and eased licensing requirements. In 1980 the Third Phone was abolished followed in 1985 by the First. All existing First and Second Class licensees were issued a new lifetime certificate, the GROL, in diploma form. Subsequent applicants received card form licenses with an endorsement restricting them from domestic broadcast transmitter operation or repairs. This is a meaningless limitation since in the U.S. a license is no longer required for such work.
Click to expand...
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_radiotelephone_operator_license

Frankly, I don't care if you're chief engineer Montgomery Scott, since it's beside the point. Your analyses of the events of Sept. 11, however, are laughable. When they aren't disgusting, that is.
 
apathoid said:
On a mechanical jet like a 767, it would be:
Control column -> Mechanical linkage -> Hydraulic Actuators -> Control Surfaces.
On autopilot, it would be:
Autopilot mode panel -> FCCs(thru the FMC in LNAV/VNAV operation) -> Autopilot Servos -> Control surface.
Click to expand...

A question for you Apathoid.

The plane that hit the tower shortly before impact hit at a 45-degree angle. Are the Autopilot Servos capable of this maneuver?

South Tower impact video
 
It doesn't take any more force on the controls to do a steep bank than a shallow bank. Aileron deflection controls the rate at which you roll, not the absolute bank angle.
But once the circuit breakers for the autopilot servos were pulled, it wouldn't be an issue anyway.
 
TjW said:
It doesn't take any more force on the controls to do a steep bank than a shallow bank. Aileron deflection controls the rate at which you roll, not the absolute bank angle.
But once the circuit breakers for the autopilot servos were pulled, it wouldn't be an issue anyway.
Click to expand...

I was hoping that the autopilot was capable of only small and slow corrections rather then the large quick corrections we saw in the video. This would be clear evidence that this plane was not under autopilot control.

Just another nail in the coffin.
 
babazaroni said:
A question for you Apathoid.

The plane that hit the tower shortly before impact hit at a 45-degree angle. Are the Autopilot Servos capable of this maneuver?

I was hoping that the autopilot was capable of only small and slow corrections rather then the large quick corrections we saw in the video. This would be clear evidence that this plane was not under autopilot control.

Just another nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely correct. Under autopilot control, the bank angle is limited to 30 degrees(the range is selectable between 10-30 degrees) and the turn rate is 1.5 degrees a second maximum. I dont have the figures for bank rate limits, but it would definately be a good deal slower than that final correction. Good observation. :)
 
apathoid said:
That is absolutely correct. Under autopilot control, the bank angle is limited to 30 degrees(the range is selectable between 10-30 degrees) and the turn rate is 1.5 degrees a second maximum. I dont have the figures for bank rate limits, but it would definately be a good deal slower than that final correction. Good observation. :)
Click to expand...
So why do all these idiot woowoo researchers ignore that? Then again, I am sure they would just say that somebody from the NWO threatened or paid off every NIST scientist who said the angle was more than 30 degrees. Can't win an argument with someone who writes their own rules. As soon as you corner them, they change the rules. Seems like an exercise in futility to me.
 
RemoveBush, sorry If I missed your response in an earlier reply but I have looked and I couldn't see it.

You have now stated multiple times that the towers had to be brought all the way down to the ground otherwise they would have left behind 'IMPORTANT EVIDENCE'.

Could you please state for the record what evidence you believe needed to be destroyed?
 
JonnyFive said:
Oh, look at that, it appears that RemoveBush has managed to go from 0 to BANNED in 182 posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2221142#post2221142

"Legal action"? What the hell? Because we asked him to use the quote function?

Chalk another up for the evil government Illuminati death squad. Please don't kill me.
Click to expand...

Even though he's been banned, it may take us decades to sort through his posts and try to fathom what he's on about.
 
~enigma~ said:
Go rent the DVD, watch it and you will be reliving this thread in full color.
When the planes went in for maintainance. Incidentally the film's release was supposed to be 9/11/01 but they delayed it because the opening scene was a plane flying into a Denver skyscraper.
Click to expand...

Isn't Tuesday an odd day to release a film?
 
TjW said:
It doesn't take any more force on the controls to do a steep bank than a shallow bank. Aileron deflection controls the rate at which you roll, not the absolute bank angle.
But once the circuit breakers for the autopilot servos were pulled, it wouldn't be an issue anyway.
Click to expand...

They could have just programmed the autopilot to have self-preservation instincts. I believe there's an open-source API for that. ;)
 
Architect said:
It'll all be part of the conspiracy!

Still, no great loss. And I still think he's a 28th/PDoh/Se7en sock pocket.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. He was even more annoying than they were in a number of ways. I mean, at least they knew how to use the quote function.

It's hard to tell one abrasive idiot apart from the others anyway, so I'm not so sure it really matters.

Besides, I thought PDoh had seen the light-ah and was no longer a troo believer... or something.
 
Architect said:
It'll all be part of the conspiracy!

Still, no great loss. And I still think he's a 28th/PDoh/Se7en sock pocket.
Click to expand...

I think he has performed the troll equivalent of a suicide attack. It was just more protracted and painful than any of us would have liked.
 
Architect said:
Yeah, and David Irving has converted to Judaism.....:eye-poppi
Click to expand...

It's possible, I guess.

It's also possible that I'll wake up tomorrow and Jesus will be coming back to kick all our asses. Tons of crazy things are possible.

Probability: another thing that troofers don't understand.
 
apathoid said:
That is absolutely correct. Under autopilot control, the bank angle is limited to 30 degrees(the range is selectable between 10-30 degrees) and the turn rate is 1.5 degrees a second maximum. I dont have the figures for bank rate limits, but it would definately be a good deal slower than that final correction. Good observation. :)
Click to expand...

Apathoid, you have cleared up many misconceptions about the flight controls onboard these planes and shown that they could not be controlled remotely by some rouge program embedded in the planes flight control computer.
It is clear especially to me that this program would only be effective if the planes autopilots were on. The manual controls are mechanically linked through to hydraulic actuators where as the auto pilot controls are routed through to servo valves.
Under auto pilot the bank angle is limited to 30 degrees, this angle was clearly exceeded on the video that babazaroni presented and as such is it save to say that the video alone proves that this plane was being flown manually? Is it safe to say that this angle can only be achieved though a pilot using the mechanical linkage to the planes hydraulics actuators and that the auto controls would prevent this happening?

Equally so the black boxes were recovered from the crash sites of Flight 77 and Flight 93 would the data that was recorded on these boxes confirm whether the planes were being flown manually or on autopilot? I would like to think it would and it would surely finish this remote controlled nonsense if the FDR showed that these planes were being flown manually when they crashed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom