Re: electrifing windows for security

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>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.

Nope...  Sorry...  that is "far" from proof, Robert.  You weren't there.
  Like I said the place was under construction.  You have no idea (and
neither do I) about what happened...  All I can tell you is that it did.
  We pulled the rest of the cable required for the system we were
installing and called it a day.  I'm grateful (in retrospect) that I
wasn't hurt.


>
> 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,

Wait a minute bud.  Weren't you the one that stated *unequivocally* that
rolling a 737 past 60 degrees of bank would result in it becoming a
"stain on the ground"??  Whoa...  Now you're saying something completely
different...  Typical...


> 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).

I've got many hours PIC.  I'm type rated on several aircraft you aren't
  even qualified to kick tires on.


> 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.

Hmmm...  "Slowly"...  It actually happened pretty quickly from my
position.  We were in landing configuration.  Wheels down, flaps and
leading edge slats extended.  We were trying to simulate the flight
profile of the 737 which crashed at Cranbrook, B.C.


> That is what happens
> in an uncoordinated turn.

We weren't in an "uncoordinated turn".


> Do it long enough at 5000 AGL and you'll
> stain the terrain.

Nope.  The PIC (Boeing's senior test pilot) righted the aircraft by
completing the roll.


> What you will NEVER get is a sudden, aerobatic
> snap-roll of the type you described.

Happened pretty quick from where I was sitting.


> 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.

Ahhh...  I see you're now including some of the information I've
supplied you in previous posts...  The Boeing 737 was *designed* from
the ground up as a STOL aircraft.  That means it can get into shorter
fields than most other transport aircraft of it's size.  Ever been into
"Tuk", Churchill, Castelgar??  Have a look at the approach charts to
those fields...


> The reason for the rule is
> simple.  Do it and things inside like wing supports tend to break.

"Wing supports"??  Where would they be??  How about looking up the
correct terminology before you start posting your "FAQs"?  How do you
spell "Aileron"??  A skilled pilot could do rolls all day long and not
exceed 2.5 G's...  The 737's designed to handle that and more.


>
> You also claimed at first that you wanted to test your theory about
> reverse thrusters by deploying them in flight.

Nope...  I never said that...  What I said was that there was no way we
could deploy the thrusters in flight so (after speaking to a couple of
Boeing Engineers), it was decided that the application of full left
rudder would sufficiently simulate deployment of one reverser in the
flight configuration under test.  If you Google this subject to any
extent you'll quickly discover that what I said here is the absolute
truth, and what you've said is the "Bass Twisted Version".


> You didn't know it
> until I told you but that is patently imp[ossible.

Another lie, Bass.  You're a master at twisting people's words... Point
us to the Google that proves what you're spewing!


> 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.

You're wrong again!!!  There are "reverser over-ride" switches on the
overhead console.  In fact they're located immediately behind the
"reverser unlock" indicators.  You've never flown a 737, never spoken to
anyone that's flown one, and have repeatedly demonstrated such a lack of
knowledge of basic aerodynamics in previous posts that any claims you've
made to being a "student pilot" are ludicrous in the extreme.  In the
accident at Cranbrook, the co-pilot had broken the seal on one of the
reverser over-ride toggles but never got the chance to flip the switch
to restore hydraulic power and stow that reverser before the aircraft
nose dived into the ground.  The engineers *I* spoke with at the time
had all told me that if they were at 3500 feet AGL (and Cranbrook was at
"sea level"), they would have stood a good chance to recover the
aircraft and land it safely.  Unfortunately the aircraft had just
initiated a "go-around" (also known as a "touch-and-go"), was extremely
"dirty" aerodynamically, and was just above the stall speed.  If you
listen to the cockpit tapes, you can actually hear the stick shaker in
the back-ground.


>
> 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.

Nope... I've never said that... Point to the Google where I did!


> Boeing is not in the habit of
> lending their jet airliners to claims adjusters (that is, assuming you
> even were a claims adjuster).

You're right...  They wouldn't have lent their airliner to a claims
adjuster (but then I never said they did, did I?).


>
> Some years ago a Boeing engineer bought a system for his home from my
> online store.

Sure.


> He has since referred a number of his colleagues to me.

Uh-huh...  Including an MD-80 "Wanna-be" Captain who also said you
couldn't roll one of those...  Interesting...  I happen to know a *real*
MD-80 Captain (who lives in Orlando) who *has* rolled one.  It handles
like a "fighter", he says.


> 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.

Ah, yes....  I knew the "fictitious" engineers and pilots would rear
their ugly heads at one time or another...  Funny how they're always
"jumping in" to defend your rather meager knowledge of aerodynamics,
isn't it??


> 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.

Once again, you fail to mention that both incidences also involved
failure of the rudder servo (you keep missing this one little item in
your vain attempt at "one-up-man-ship").  The rudder deflected hard over
and you're absolutely right...  there would be no way to recover from
that in *any* flight regimen or altitude.  By the way, one "rudder
incident" that happened did manage to land safely.  And guess what??
Even though the rudder had deflected hard over, there was *NO STRUCTURAL
DAMAGE* to any part of the airframe.


> The famous 737 barrel roll which someone
> mentioned here is nothing like the maneuver in your lie.

I don't think you were there... for either maneuver, so you can't really
comment, can you??


> It's a
> relatively slow, co-ordinated, climbing turn which continues until the
> airplane spirals horizontally.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you??  You don't
start a barrel roll (or snap for that matter) with a climbing turn.


>
> Face it, Olson.  You told a pack of lies and got caught.

Only according to your twisted reckoning...  You have yet to post any
proof of what you say I said via Google.  Go ahead, Robert....  Make my
day...


> It infuriated
> you when I exposed your nonsense for what it was.

No actually... I've enjoyed watching you make a total idiot of yourself.
  This last bit is just another example to add to the growing list.


> But that was your
> own fault.

Really??


> 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.

So...  what are we saying here???  That the foremost liar in Usenet has
now accused another person of lying with *no* actual proof except for
what he "says"??  C'mon Robert... you can do better than that...


How about a few Google searches on lies you've spewed??

<-----------------
Path:
pd7tw2no!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:58:10 -0600
From: "Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <bpidnZOE8qYKAW_cRVn-ig@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<5sydnZqjfqNHpG7cRVn-hA@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Os-dnfJz5csX3G7cRVn-oA@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<jNudnT2Z8JDa6G7cRVn-tw@xxxxxxxxxxx> <YS_Id.156161$6l.113608@pd7tw2no>
<41fa81bc.18945692@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <386dnay9dbkiC2ncRVn-pQ@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<%E4Jd.729$wA5.142@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<-cSdneqbUa5d_GjcRVn-2A@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<8keJd.9023$yc.8647@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<41fc745f.26900991@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Y5mdnWniWoayUGjcRVn-gQ@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<420fce0e.49859634@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Unethical business practices by RLB
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:58:01 -0500
Organization: Bass Burglar Alarms
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <Cu6dnSw_lqV_TGjcRVn-uA@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.56.255.116
X-Trace:
sv3-WRue4j60y3em0xs4de4jjDGysVvOoAOng91tlT1zMCikld4ifVVZsiS84sb1EXbBlTzjafe5WEVVGVh!ItV/GkEFv0bsghldjdL3o27nK6Br2C9Muwi4nl56IEiS4qKkc92LopVnKGEpyA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.22
Xref: pd7hu0no alt.security.alarms:30195451
X-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:58:11 MST (pd7tw2no)


The Help system is an integral part of the app and yes, Cracker.  It did
need to pass UL.

--
Regards,
Robert L Bass



There is no such requirement (or listed UL Standard) for downloading
software for a fire alarm, security, or access control system. This
includes "help systems" for software applications. UL Listings
surrounding fire alarm systems reference equipment and the firmware
required to operate it. Additionally, there are testing standards the
equipment is required to meet whenever changes or amendments are made to
it (this includes both local and remote programming by whatever means
the manufacturer has made available). In a previous post you made, you
alluded that I was "FOS". The post you made in response to Graham (which
I have included in this post for the benefit of anyone interested) is
further proof that *you* are the one that is "FOS"!


-------------------->


Or how about this little beauty:

<----------------

Let's look at your "record" in this group (I won't mention all the
others in which you've demonstrated your baser character and nature).


You lied when you said I offered to "donate" money or a system to a
museum in the US and then had the temerity to accuse me of reneging on it.


You lied when you accused Graham of using his company's resources to do
a credit check on you.  The company Graham works for doesn't have an
account with a credit reporting agency and doesn't do credit checks on
their customers.  You compounded the lie by filing a false complaint
against Graham with his employer.  You know damn well that Graham got
your SIN number which was posted as 144-44-1945 in "Google" (once you
"do the math") from an open Internet database of convicted felons.


You lie repeatedly whenever you state you're "in the trade", or "still
in the trade", or make any reference to the fact that you're "still
installing" security systems professionally.


You lie every time you dance around the issue of being "bonded and
insured"...  You aren't, admit it...  You lie when you've repeatedly
said that I've asked you to publish your policy numbers and Insurer's
information...  I *never* have.


You lie whenever you say you're a "student pilot"...  or when you state
you have even a slight knowledge of aviation (or aerodynamics).  Cessna
*still* doesn't make a 152 tail dragger, Robert.   The 152 is not
"precursor" to the 182 (if you must know, the 180 is), only the 182RG
has retractable undercarriage so when you mention "182", *real* pilots
think "fixed gear". There's no such thing as "negative" lift, and the
expression "angle of attack of the wind" is just not something you hear
*any* student pilot (or even a novice one) use...  I doubt very much
you've ever "soloed".  Someone with your complete lack of knowledge of
emergency procedures (even in the presence of a so called "CFI")
shouldn't be allowed within an airport perimeter let alone near an
actual aircraft.  Your recent response comparing "Convair" to "Avro" was
not only ludicrous, it clearly demonstrated that you have *NO CLUE*
about anything at all aviation related.


You lie whenever you say that you've run a central station alarm company
for 20, 25, or 27 years (or what-ever-the-hell the latest figure is)...
  You incorporated a company in 1979...  You were also convicted of
assault with a gun the same year.  You've stated that you got your start
"in the trade" sooner than that, but have never mentioned it before I
asked you to clarify. You've also stated that you were servicing alarm
panels without a license for nine years in CT, opened your online store
in 1997 and moved to Florida in 1999.  I figure the *total* length of
time "in the trade" you can claim is *maybe*  nine years (ten tops)...
The rest of the time you've been sitting on your fat can reading manuals
and stealing people's ideas (or cycling around the neighborhood on it)...

*** The BBB in Hartford says you opened your business there in 1980, by
the way.***


You lied when you posted a false customer comment on a competitor's web
site, and then had the temerity to at first deny you did it.  Your
"apology" was about as genuine as a nine dollar bill...


You lie when you say you don't use sock puppets or post under false
names...  Your IP was identified as having logged into the AlarmsBC
website.  You posted a question about me posing as "Jake" and submitted
someone else's email address (an innocent Grade Four student's).  You've
also posted messages here using other people's "munged" names and email
addresses.


You lie whenever you say I've tried to "interfere" with your
relationship with your suppliers.  The *only* time I've *ever* mentioned
your name was when I called DSC to advise them that you had their
software available for free *download* on *your* website (this violates
the software's EULA).  You lie every time you twist this around to say
you I accused you of selling their CD "illegally".


You lie every time you state that you "believe" in the group's FAQ.
You've compounded this by taking to not only posting it as a link on
your website, but also posting it here on a "weekly" basis.  You
couldn't follow the FAQ if you tried.  This latest attack on me proves
it beyond a shadow of a doubt.


You stole Gene Witt's work and tried to republish it as your own (a fact
that's both well known and provable via Google).  You haven't stopped
there though...  You've also "incorporated" the work and suggestions of
several others in your own FAQ without the proper credit.


You lied when you accused me of "suggesting" that you would cheat on
your income tax.  It wasn't a "suggestion"...  You requested a receipt
for $150.00 on "museum stationary" for "tax purposes" for an item that
normally sells for much less.  The "inference" is not only clear, I'll
come right out and say it.  If you intend to "donate" an item and the
amount of that donation is based on *your* inflated price (as you've
requested a receipt in that amount), then that's *fraud*, buddy...
plain and simple.  The item in question was probably given to you as a
"demo" as well, which makes the whole thing even more disgusting.


You lied when you stated that the downloading software and help program
your "company" worked on was "UL Listed on the first try".  Neither the
Fireshield program or it's help system (with your rather childish
commentary) is UL Listed.


You don't hesitate to include participants in this group (that don't
happen to "cow-tow"  to your self-proclaimed "magnificence") in sick and
twisted "examples" of prurient sexual practices.  It's disgusting coming
from anyone let alone a former supposed "lay minister".

----------------->


What's worse than all this??  Your customer service sucks.  How many
people have posted here (even recently) trying to get in touch with
you??  Your email's full, your voice messages are full...  What are they
"full" of, Robert??  Refund demands, supplier payment demands??  Tsk!!
And you *still* haven't fixed the pop-ups on BassBurglarAlarms dot con.