Re: electrifing windows for security

[robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> Y'know, You've accused me of lying about this story (and the one where you say I was supposedly piloting a Boeing 737 inverted) again and again.  So far you've little to offer in the way of actual proof...

OK, here's proof.  In the stupid lie you told about getting zapped when
your ladder miraculously jumped into an open-front, high voltage
electrical cabinet, you claimed to have been partway up the ladder and
that someone else was at the foot of the ladder.  Ergo you were only
touching the ladder.  If you knew *anything* about electricity, you'd
know that even if the ladder had touched a live wire you would not have
fealt anything since you would have presented no path to ground.  The
other reason it didn't happen is that you made up the whole story.

As to the fable of the inverted Boeing, that one was an even more
ludicrous lie.  First of all, the only way to invert a 737 without
destroying it is a barrel roll, which has nothing to do with the
ignorant claim you made that the pilot (not you actually; you've never
held a pilot's license).  Had the pilot of this fictional flight
actually jammed full rudder at 5,000 AGL the airplane would have either
yawed in the direction of the rudder and then (if he didn't correct
quickly) banked and s-l-o-w-l-y rolled to one side as the wing on the
inside of the yaw lost lift and dipped downward.  That is what happens
in an uncoordinated turn.  Do it long enough at 5000 AGL and you'll
stain the terrain.  What you will NEVER get is a sudden, aerobatic
snap-roll of the type you described.  The 737 is a very strong airframe
but it is not designed to handle aerobatics and it is strictly
forbidden to try them in that airplane.  The reason for the rule is
simple.  Do it and things inside like wing supports tend to break.

You also claimed at first that you wanted to test your theory about
reverse thrusters by deploying them in flight.  You didn't know it
until I told you but that is patently imp[ossible.  The reverse
thrusters cannot be deployed withoout weight on the main gear (IOW,
they won't budge until the plane is on the ground).  There's a reason
for that, too.  If anyone ever deployed them in flight they would cause
the airplane to crash within seconds.  There's no way to stow them once
deployed until the airplane comes to a stop either because the
hydraulices couldn't overcome the pressure of the jet exhaust against
the thrusters.

Next we come to the matter of how you claimed to have come into
possession of this fabled airliner.  This is the best part of all.  You
lied that Boeing lent a brand new 737 it to you so you could test your
pet theory of what brought another.  Boeing is not in the habit of
lending their jet airliners to claims adjusters (that is, assuming you
even were a claims adjuster).

Some years ago a Boeing engineer bought a system for his home from my
online store.  He has since referred a number of his colleagues to me.
Just for fun I asked some of these fellows if any of your story was
even possible.  One lughed and said you were totally FOS.  Another said
that there's no way to snap-roll a 737, no matter what you do; that if
you tried, you'd never survive.  He also pointed out that there have
been two known incidences of 737's getting into inverted flight.  One
happened at FL220 (that's over 4 miles up).  No one survived either
event bvecause it's impossibl;e to recover that aircraft from an
uncoordinated inversion.  The famous 737 barrel roll which someone
mentioned here is nothing like the maneuver in your lie.  It's a
relatively slow, co-ordinated, climbing turn which continues until the
airplane spirals horizontally.

Face it, Olson.  You told a pack of lies and got caught.  It infuriated
you when I exposed your nonsense for what it was.  But that was your
own fault.  If you hadn't started flaming me in an attempt to win the
comeraderie among the IB, I'd have just ignored your blather.  After
all, nobody else believed your stories either.

Merry Christmas