MH370 missing (Part 2)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

The 777 and all Boeing aircraft prior to the 787 IIRC use hydromechanical controls, not fly by wire, so yes they would require some modification.

No, the 777 is fly-by-wire, i remembered the fuzz in the news when they launched the 777 as the "first" commercial airplane that used the fly-by-wire system.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Yes, nice depending on if you're human or the HAL9000. You know what happened in the movie? The machine became self aware, and it killed the humans.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

I was attempting to amend my post when my phone flaked out. It's a mechanical column to fly by wire. I was wrong.

But of you read about the alleged BUAP, it would still require modification. It is supposed to be separate from all aircraft power and computer systems, which odd why it can't be disconnected.

Apology accepted.

So as I have previously stated, the system is already present in the form of fly by wire and I imagine all BUAP need consist of is a software change.

Having said that, I don't think BUAP is what caused MH370 to diverge from it's course.

a reply to: Mikeultra

Show me any manmade system, that is real, and is confirmed to exist that requires zero maintenance or human intervention.

You can't, because everything breaks eventually. And there is no way a mechanic is going to miss a power supply not connected to the bus, or a computer for that matter.

Please stay on topic. There are several threads dedicated to AI.

a reply to: Psynic

But, if you run it through the FBW system, the crew can pull the breakers and disconnect it.

But we agree on this that BUAP didn't do it. I have yet to see anything but a patent that proves it's real.

Anyone see this?

Link Australias Titanic?

There is a bit of a section on MH370.

Company called Merlindown

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

But, if you run it through the FBW system, the crew can pull the breakers and disconnect it.

But we agree on this that BUAP didn't do it. I have yet to see anything but a patent that proves it's real.

There is nothing to see.

It's software

Let's move on.

originally posted by: JesperA

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

The 777 and all Boeing aircraft prior to the 787 IIRC use hydromechanical controls, not fly by wire, so yes they would require some modification.

No, the 777 is fly-by-wire, i remembered the fuzz in the news when they launched the 777 as the "first" commercial airplane that used the fly-by-wire system.

What would Airbus say...

"The A320 was the first civil airliner to include a full digital fly-by-wire flight control system."

originally posted by: civpop
Anyone see this?

Link Australias Titanic?

There is a bit of a section on MH370.

Company called Merlindown

We have heard several statements of "substantive" evidence from Australia PM Abbott, I have no doubt this is equally substantive.

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: JesperA

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

The 777 and all Boeing aircraft prior to the 787 IIRC use hydromechanical controls, not fly by wire, so yes they would require some modification.

No, the 777 is fly-by-wire, i remembered the fuzz in the news when they launched the 777 as the "first" commercial airplane that used the fly-by-wire system.

What would Airbus say...

"The A320 was the first civil airliner to include a full digital fly-by-wire flight control system."

True but the Boeing version was the first not to fly into a forest on it's maiden flight.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: JesperA

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

The 777 and all Boeing aircraft prior to the 787 IIRC use hydromechanical controls, not fly by wire, so yes they would require some modification.

No, the 777 is fly-by-wire, i remembered the fuzz in the news when they launched the 777 as the "first" commercial airplane that used the fly-by-wire system.

What would Airbus say...

"The A320 was the first civil airliner to include a full digital fly-by-wire flight control system."

True but the Boeing version was the first not to fly into a forest on it's maiden flight.

Nit pickin' lol

But at least Airbus know where all it's planes are. More

a reply to: Psynic

Says you. But if you run it through the existing software it can be interrupted by pulling a braker. The parent clearly says it has its own power supply separate from the aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

Says you. But if you run it through the existing software it can be interrupted by pulling a braker. The parent clearly says it has its own power supply separate from the aircraft.

Was that your Mom or your Dad?

Seriously Z, we're past this now. We've already agreed it is irrelevant. BUAP wasn't a factor, let's move on.

I read an interesting article yesterday having to do with press releases made by GA Telesis regarding that ex-Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that was discovered at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel. The author of the article, Christopher Bollyn says that he broke the news about that plane being at the airport in March 2014.

He also says that only after that story was made public on the internet, that GA Telesis back-dated the October 04, 2013 press release and inserted it into their press releases web site. He says that a search on the Internet Archives Wayback Machine proves that the October 04, 2013 press release was not present on December 01, 2013.

This points to a planned Israel/U.S. false flag attack that was foiled by the discovery of that plane in Israel. Something big was planned on the scale of 911. Here are screen captures with the links and also to Christopher Bollyn's article.

This is from the Internet Archives Wayback Machine showing how the GA Telesis press releases page looked on December 01, 2013. That would be after the October 04, 2013 press release regarding the ex-Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 in Israel. You will see there was no press release on that page on that date!

web.archive.org...://www.gatelesis.com/category/press/

This image shows the October 04, 2013 press release inserted between an August 21, 2013 and an October 11, 2013 press release after Christopher Bollyn broke the story about the ex-Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel in March 2014. bollyn.com...

www.gatelesis.com...

In March 2014, I posted a very important terrorism-prevention story that revealed that a near-identical twin of the missing Malaysian plane, that was Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, was sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv. The article, "Are the Israelis Planning Another 9-11 Using the Missing Boeing 777?" pointed out, with photos and documentation, that a plane, very similar to the missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft, that had been obtained by a Florida-based company called GA Telesis for dismantling in the United States, was actually being kept secretly in a hangar in Israel. What, pray tell, was a plane, nearly identical to the missing MH370, doing in an Israeli hangar? Because this was such a suspicious and ominous development that clearly had the very real potential to become another 9/11-type attack, I delved further into the questions surrounding this mysterious plane in Israel and its relationship with the missing MH370 in a series of articles: - See more at: bollyn.com...

bollyn.com...

Considering this apparent coverup attempt by GA Telesis with their press releases, it looks like another 911 attack was in the works perpetrated by the U.S. and Israel. Who was going to be the patsy? Syria or Iran?

Couldn't one consider ALL Boeing 777s "near identical twin(s)"?

I'm not able to follow the logic behind this theory.

Perhaps you can flesh it out a little further for me?

The simple fact that a 777 is in a hangar in Israel doesn't mean anything.

originally posted by: Psynic
Couldn't one consider ALL Boeing 777s "near identical twin(s)"?

No. The airworthiness directive seemed to apply to many 777 models OTHER THAN the one used for MH370, the 777-200ER:

www.lowyat.net...

On June 12th 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed an Airworthiness Directive (AD) for Boeing Airplanes, specifically the 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER and -777F.

You can see the 777-200ER isn't listed, so there are differences. Funny how all the other models had a fault that could cause this type of crash, but not the model that actually crashed?

The 777-200ER narrows it down a bit but there are still over 420 of that model alone in service.

The simple fact that a 777 is in a hangar in Israel doesn't mean anything.

Agreed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Psynic
Couldn't one consider ALL Boeing 777s "near identical twin(s)"?

No. The airworthiness directive seemed to apply to many 777 models OTHER THAN the one used for MH370, the 777-200ER:

www.lowyat.net...

On June 12th 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed an Airworthiness Directive (AD) for Boeing Airplanes, specifically the 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER and -777F.

You can see the 777-200ER isn't listed, so there are differences. Funny how all the other models had a fault that could cause this type of crash, but not the model that actually crashed?

The 777-200ER narrows it down a bit but there are still over 420 of that model alone in service.

The simple fact that a 777 is in a hangar in Israel doesn't mean anything.

Agreed.

I just love it when self described experts like yourself begin a post with a sweeping "No" and then proceed to split hairs.

Outwardly there are virtually NO DIFFERENCES between 777s of the same fuselage length.

Did the aircraft in Israel have Malaysian Airlines painted on it?

No, it didn't.

This story is obfuscation and part of the stalling tactic being employed to conceal the fact that MH370 was hijacked.

a reply to: Psynic
You don't know whether it was still painted as a Malaysian Airlines aircraft when it 1st arrived in Israel. Even if it was stripped of it's Malaysian Airlines logos when it was sold to GA Telesis, it would be very easy for the Mossad or CIA to give it a fresh paint job identifying it as Malaysian Airlines 9M-MRO for its false flag terror mission.

I wonder which country was to be the target? The U.S. or Israel? Most likely the U.S.

How much was left of any of the aircraft from 911? Not much at all that could be gone through to be certain they were from specific aircraft (serial numbers). Flight 93 totally disappeared, not a fragment to be found!

You're ignoring the fact that GA Telesis back-dated a press release and inserted it between two other press releases. Why would they do that? You can see from the Internet Archives Wayback Machine the October 04, 2013 press release was not on their site on December 01, 2013. Do you have an explanation for that?

Uhrm, clerical error.