DanJohnson 0 #76 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote ***At least an airliner won't ever be used again. The pilots are trained and the passengers won't go down without a fight QuoteWhat if .., a symapathetic pilot working for a foreign airline were behind the controls of an inward bound aircraft from a foreign country? Are you certain an airliner will never be used again? I'm more certain that no skyscraper will ever fall into its' own footprint soley from a fire caused by an airplane strike. Add a little nanothermite, and Presto! You're a very intelligent guy Winsor. I was there several years ago when you addressed the Group Members committee quite eloquently and made a most rational and logical argument. You were summarilly dismissed. What do you think of the pancake theory in regards to the collapse of the towers? Is it plausible considering the temperature of the fires (jet fuel)? And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #77 September 6, 2011 What do you think of the pancake theory in regards to the collapse of the towers? >I am not familiar with a "pancake theory" offhand. Is it plausible considering the temperature of the fires (jet fuel)? >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Calvin19 0 #78 September 6, 2011 Quote And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #79 September 6, 2011 Quote What do you think of the pancake theory in regards to the collapse of the towers? >I am not familiar with a "pancake theory" offhand. Is it plausible considering the temperature of the fires (jet fuel)? >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. Quote First let me state that I was editing my last comment apparently as you were typing this . Now let's look at this exchange ; And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. I wonder what you would say to Jaybird . The towers did each fall but was the cause a fire from an aircraft strike? Is that result repeatable? The Empire State Building was also struck by an aircraft and the resulting fire din't result in collapse so can we agree to cut the odds to 66%? What do you think about this; it was reported on CNN and BBC that the number 7 tower had collapsed about twenty minutes before it collapsed into it's own foot print. Do you believe a pattern of 3 skyscrapers collapsing into their own footprints on the same day as a result of random and chaotic events such as plane strikes and fires to hold a high probability? Would you bet on the Mega millions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #80 September 6, 2011 Neither do I gamble nor believe. I also do not consider the subject worthy of a great deal of consideration. You appear to care, while I do not. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #81 September 6, 2011 ***Neither do I gamble nor believe. I also do not consider the subject worthy of a great deal of consideration. Quote Your glib reply about 100% was evidence that you didn't "consider the subject worthy of consideration" . A man of your IQ would have to recognize the evidence that the official 9-11 story was a "cock-up" My IQ being slightly higher than yours one of two things must be true. Either there is a very thin line between those smart enough to understand the official story of 9-11 is bullshit and those just exactly dumb enough to believe the party lie, or , there are many who are very intelligent who believe the lie. You appear to care, while I do not. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #82 September 6, 2011 why do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #83 September 6, 2011 Quote why do "geniuses" have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Calvin19 0 #84 September 6, 2011 Quote Your glib reply about 100% was evidence that you didn't "consider the subject worthy of consideration" But, to give such things consideration would be like giving consideration to flat earth theories in the realm of astrophysics. The majority of the educated world is past that so the collective mind can focus on things to benefit the future, not dwell on fashionable political propaganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #85 September 6, 2011 Quotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. But I experience in the God realm where you still experience in the physical realm. This might be of interest to you, Coreece, When I experience the physical realm from outside I see blotches of color which represent emotion. I can focus and see exactly an incident but why? My goal is Peace among Men Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #86 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. Readability matters. Otherwise, it suggests your brain is just as scattered as your writings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #87 September 6, 2011 ***But, to give such things consideration would be like giving consideration to flat earth theories in the realm of astrophysics. The majority of the educated world is past that so the collective mind can focus on things to benefit the future, not dwell on fashionable political propaganda. Yeah Bub! You are exactly right!! And of course the Secret Service knew that GW Bush was perfectly safe while the country was under attack. No need to move him to a secure location ! Leave him there for 25 minutes more even though the world knew of his location. If there was any concern about the attack the secret service would have wrapped his ass in a nomex blanket and spirited him away to a secure area. But they left him to listen to " My Pet Goat" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #88 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. Readability matters. Otherwise, it suggests your brain is just as scattered as your writings. And if a brain is scattered in it's thoughts throwing out one truth here and another truth of a different subject over there, is the truth compromised? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #89 September 6, 2011 Quote And of course the Secret Service knew that GW Bush was perfectly safe while the country was under attack. No need to move him to a secure location ! Leave him there for 25 minutes more even though the world knew of his location. Ok, let's say this was all coreographed...what a nice touch... The country is in dismay... "Where's the president?" "He's over here, with the children!" ...But on the other hand, he would've looked like a douche bag if he started mowing down children as he ran for the doorway to escape danger like a coward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh_1PeJhaQYour secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #90 September 6, 2011 ***Ok, let's say this was all coreographed...what a nice touch... The country is in dismay... "Where's the president?" "He's over here, with the children!" ...But on the other hand, he would've looked like a douche bag if he started mowing down children as he ran for the doorway to escape danger like a coward. Quote It's not up to the President. At the moment the Secret Service realizes the president may be in danger they wrap him in a nomex blanket and move him to a secure location. Andy Card whispered into his ear that the country is under attack but the SS allowed POTUS to remain in an unsecured location for another 29 minutes. The Secret Service must have known that POTUS was not a target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #91 September 6, 2011 As I said...if this was all choreographed, what a nice touch. I wonder who wrote the script? Bush: hey Dick...when the planes hit, do think I should be in the oval office with my hand on the button? Dick: Nah...I'd say it'd be a nice touch if you were to be surrounded by the children. Bush: Good one Dick...that's some good propagandizationing right there. You think I should take a camera along with us too?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #92 September 6, 2011 [***eply]As I said...if this was all choreographed, what a nice touch. I wonder who wrote the script? Quote Me too Bro ! What is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #93 September 6, 2011 Quote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #94 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? LOL! !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #95 September 6, 2011 QuoteWhat is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Do you think that'll hold up in court?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jonstark 8 #96 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. Quote The Empire State Building was also struck by an aircraft and the resulting fire din't result in collapse so can we agree to cut the odds to 66%? Boeing 737ER into WTS 229,000 pounds empty weight 450,000 gross weight 530 MPH Struck WTS at max speed for effect. Fire never controlled 1944 Boeing B-25 into ESB 21,000 pounds empty weight 33,000 pounds loaded 42,000 max when armed 230 MPH Struck ESB at slow maneuvering speed looking for nearby airport in fog fire extinguished in 40 minutes Your assertion that the antique aircraft hitting the Empire state is comparable is not plausible. That a/c was travelling at a far slower speed, carried far less energy to the impact, had less fuel which probably splashed all over the exterior of the building and that fuel carried far less energy. Apples and Oranges. Do NOT try to lay that nanothermite crap on this thread. We're talking about government interference with the privilege to operate a light aircraft legally. We are not talking about conspiracies. We are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #97 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't always agree with Kallend, but the title of the thread includes the words "Small Airplane". So? We're not confined to talk about only exactly what is specified in the title. And how small is "small"? Is an Otter a "small" airplane? Technically, yes. A Twin Otter (DHC-6 300) is legally a "small" aircraft. http://faaglossary.com/small-aircraft-faa-regulatory-definition-from-14-cfr-1-1/ But the airliners JohnRich needs to make his case were VERY far from small.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #98 September 6, 2011 QuoteWe are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. Agreed. Vociferously so. But, that's what the average American's need for feeling "safe from the bad men" hath wrought. Just an opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #99 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote And imagine the devastation from a biological warfare product dispensed over major cities from crop-dusters. I have posed this exact question to an Army chemist who has been in research and development of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical warfare protection and decontamination for 35 yrs. My position has always been that a light a/c is the tactical equivalent of a VW Beetle. He totally concurred. Using a blistering agent one would have to fly very close to a very dense concentration of people, his example was the Million Man March on DC, to possibly injure a few people. Anthrax, Plague, Pox would be next to impossible to dispense enough spores in concentrations able to infect anyone. A tactical nuke might be somewhat effective if detonated above a tightly packed gathering. What pisses me off is that Homeland security is singling out General Aviation as a bigger threat than U-Haul. They have millions of us jumping through hoops, states and municipalities pissing money away on bogus security fences, ID checks, etc. They want to curb my freedom to make their jobs easier. They want to do that by making me and my little Cessna scary to the public. jon Yes, but look what Pussy Galore could have done with a Cherokee 140. if it hadn't been for James Bond.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #100 September 7, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Let's not start on flight double o seven right now. Certainly that wasn't a spy mission? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
winsor 236 #77 September 6, 2011 What do you think of the pancake theory in regards to the collapse of the towers? >I am not familiar with a "pancake theory" offhand. Is it plausible considering the temperature of the fires (jet fuel)? >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #78 September 6, 2011 Quote And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #79 September 6, 2011 Quote What do you think of the pancake theory in regards to the collapse of the towers? >I am not familiar with a "pancake theory" offhand. Is it plausible considering the temperature of the fires (jet fuel)? >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. Quote First let me state that I was editing my last comment apparently as you were typing this . Now let's look at this exchange ; And what is the probability of a symetrical collapse from a random and chaotic event such as fire? >Given that it happened twice in a row, I'd say it approaches 100%. I wonder what you would say to Jaybird . The towers did each fall but was the cause a fire from an aircraft strike? Is that result repeatable? The Empire State Building was also struck by an aircraft and the resulting fire din't result in collapse so can we agree to cut the odds to 66%? What do you think about this; it was reported on CNN and BBC that the number 7 tower had collapsed about twenty minutes before it collapsed into it's own foot print. Do you believe a pattern of 3 skyscrapers collapsing into their own footprints on the same day as a result of random and chaotic events such as plane strikes and fires to hold a high probability? Would you bet on the Mega millions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites winsor 236 #80 September 6, 2011 Neither do I gamble nor believe. I also do not consider the subject worthy of a great deal of consideration. You appear to care, while I do not. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #81 September 6, 2011 ***Neither do I gamble nor believe. I also do not consider the subject worthy of a great deal of consideration. Quote Your glib reply about 100% was evidence that you didn't "consider the subject worthy of consideration" . A man of your IQ would have to recognize the evidence that the official 9-11 story was a "cock-up" My IQ being slightly higher than yours one of two things must be true. Either there is a very thin line between those smart enough to understand the official story of 9-11 is bullshit and those just exactly dumb enough to believe the party lie, or , there are many who are very intelligent who believe the lie. You appear to care, while I do not. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #82 September 6, 2011 why do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #83 September 6, 2011 Quote why do "geniuses" have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Calvin19 0 #84 September 6, 2011 Quote Your glib reply about 100% was evidence that you didn't "consider the subject worthy of consideration" But, to give such things consideration would be like giving consideration to flat earth theories in the realm of astrophysics. The majority of the educated world is past that so the collective mind can focus on things to benefit the future, not dwell on fashionable political propaganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #85 September 6, 2011 Quotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. But I experience in the God realm where you still experience in the physical realm. This might be of interest to you, Coreece, When I experience the physical realm from outside I see blotches of color which represent emotion. I can focus and see exactly an incident but why? My goal is Peace among Men Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #86 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. Readability matters. Otherwise, it suggests your brain is just as scattered as your writings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #87 September 6, 2011 ***But, to give such things consideration would be like giving consideration to flat earth theories in the realm of astrophysics. The majority of the educated world is past that so the collective mind can focus on things to benefit the future, not dwell on fashionable political propaganda. Yeah Bub! You are exactly right!! And of course the Secret Service knew that GW Bush was perfectly safe while the country was under attack. No need to move him to a secure location ! Leave him there for 25 minutes more even though the world knew of his location. If there was any concern about the attack the secret service would have wrapped his ass in a nomex blanket and spirited him away to a secure area. But they left him to listen to " My Pet Goat" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #80 September 6, 2011 Neither do I gamble nor believe. I also do not consider the subject worthy of a great deal of consideration. You appear to care, while I do not. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #81 September 6, 2011 ***Neither do I gamble nor believe. I also do not consider the subject worthy of a great deal of consideration. Quote Your glib reply about 100% was evidence that you didn't "consider the subject worthy of consideration" . A man of your IQ would have to recognize the evidence that the official 9-11 story was a "cock-up" My IQ being slightly higher than yours one of two things must be true. Either there is a very thin line between those smart enough to understand the official story of 9-11 is bullshit and those just exactly dumb enough to believe the party lie, or , there are many who are very intelligent who believe the lie. You appear to care, while I do not. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #82 September 6, 2011 why do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #83 September 6, 2011 Quote why do "geniuses" have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #84 September 6, 2011 Quote Your glib reply about 100% was evidence that you didn't "consider the subject worthy of consideration" But, to give such things consideration would be like giving consideration to flat earth theories in the realm of astrophysics. The majority of the educated world is past that so the collective mind can focus on things to benefit the future, not dwell on fashionable political propaganda. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #85 September 6, 2011 Quotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. But I experience in the God realm where you still experience in the physical realm. This might be of interest to you, Coreece, When I experience the physical realm from outside I see blotches of color which represent emotion. I can focus and see exactly an incident but why? My goal is Peace among Men Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. Readability matters. Otherwise, it suggests your brain is just as scattered as your writings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #87 September 6, 2011 ***But, to give such things consideration would be like giving consideration to flat earth theories in the realm of astrophysics. The majority of the educated world is past that so the collective mind can focus on things to benefit the future, not dwell on fashionable political propaganda. Yeah Bub! You are exactly right!! And of course the Secret Service knew that GW Bush was perfectly safe while the country was under attack. No need to move him to a secure location ! Leave him there for 25 minutes more even though the world knew of his location. If there was any concern about the attack the secret service would have wrapped his ass in a nomex blanket and spirited him away to a secure area. But they left him to listen to " My Pet Goat" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #88 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotewhy do geniuses have such a hard time with simple things like markup code? Details aren't so important to me . They may be to you. Readability matters. Otherwise, it suggests your brain is just as scattered as your writings. And if a brain is scattered in it's thoughts throwing out one truth here and another truth of a different subject over there, is the truth compromised? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #89 September 6, 2011 Quote And of course the Secret Service knew that GW Bush was perfectly safe while the country was under attack. No need to move him to a secure location ! Leave him there for 25 minutes more even though the world knew of his location. Ok, let's say this was all coreographed...what a nice touch... The country is in dismay... "Where's the president?" "He's over here, with the children!" ...But on the other hand, he would've looked like a douche bag if he started mowing down children as he ran for the doorway to escape danger like a coward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh_1PeJhaQYour secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #90 September 6, 2011 ***Ok, let's say this was all coreographed...what a nice touch... The country is in dismay... "Where's the president?" "He's over here, with the children!" ...But on the other hand, he would've looked like a douche bag if he started mowing down children as he ran for the doorway to escape danger like a coward. Quote It's not up to the President. At the moment the Secret Service realizes the president may be in danger they wrap him in a nomex blanket and move him to a secure location. Andy Card whispered into his ear that the country is under attack but the SS allowed POTUS to remain in an unsecured location for another 29 minutes. The Secret Service must have known that POTUS was not a target. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #91 September 6, 2011 As I said...if this was all choreographed, what a nice touch. I wonder who wrote the script? Bush: hey Dick...when the planes hit, do think I should be in the oval office with my hand on the button? Dick: Nah...I'd say it'd be a nice touch if you were to be surrounded by the children. Bush: Good one Dick...that's some good propagandizationing right there. You think I should take a camera along with us too?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #92 September 6, 2011 [***eply]As I said...if this was all choreographed, what a nice touch. I wonder who wrote the script? Quote Me too Bro ! What is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #93 September 6, 2011 Quote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #94 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? LOL! !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #95 September 6, 2011 QuoteWhat is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Do you think that'll hold up in court?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jonstark 8 #96 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. Quote The Empire State Building was also struck by an aircraft and the resulting fire din't result in collapse so can we agree to cut the odds to 66%? Boeing 737ER into WTS 229,000 pounds empty weight 450,000 gross weight 530 MPH Struck WTS at max speed for effect. Fire never controlled 1944 Boeing B-25 into ESB 21,000 pounds empty weight 33,000 pounds loaded 42,000 max when armed 230 MPH Struck ESB at slow maneuvering speed looking for nearby airport in fog fire extinguished in 40 minutes Your assertion that the antique aircraft hitting the Empire state is comparable is not plausible. That a/c was travelling at a far slower speed, carried far less energy to the impact, had less fuel which probably splashed all over the exterior of the building and that fuel carried far less energy. Apples and Oranges. Do NOT try to lay that nanothermite crap on this thread. We're talking about government interference with the privilege to operate a light aircraft legally. We are not talking about conspiracies. We are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #97 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't always agree with Kallend, but the title of the thread includes the words "Small Airplane". So? We're not confined to talk about only exactly what is specified in the title. And how small is "small"? Is an Otter a "small" airplane? Technically, yes. A Twin Otter (DHC-6 300) is legally a "small" aircraft. http://faaglossary.com/small-aircraft-faa-regulatory-definition-from-14-cfr-1-1/ But the airliners JohnRich needs to make his case were VERY far from small.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #98 September 6, 2011 QuoteWe are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. Agreed. Vociferously so. But, that's what the average American's need for feeling "safe from the bad men" hath wrought. Just an opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #99 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote And imagine the devastation from a biological warfare product dispensed over major cities from crop-dusters. I have posed this exact question to an Army chemist who has been in research and development of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical warfare protection and decontamination for 35 yrs. My position has always been that a light a/c is the tactical equivalent of a VW Beetle. He totally concurred. Using a blistering agent one would have to fly very close to a very dense concentration of people, his example was the Million Man March on DC, to possibly injure a few people. Anthrax, Plague, Pox would be next to impossible to dispense enough spores in concentrations able to infect anyone. A tactical nuke might be somewhat effective if detonated above a tightly packed gathering. What pisses me off is that Homeland security is singling out General Aviation as a bigger threat than U-Haul. They have millions of us jumping through hoops, states and municipalities pissing money away on bogus security fences, ID checks, etc. They want to curb my freedom to make their jobs easier. They want to do that by making me and my little Cessna scary to the public. jon Yes, but look what Pussy Galore could have done with a Cherokee 140. if it hadn't been for James Bond.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #100 September 7, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Let's not start on flight double o seven right now. Certainly that wasn't a spy mission? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Coreece 190 #91 September 6, 2011 As I said...if this was all choreographed, what a nice touch. I wonder who wrote the script? Bush: hey Dick...when the planes hit, do think I should be in the oval office with my hand on the button? Dick: Nah...I'd say it'd be a nice touch if you were to be surrounded by the children. Bush: Good one Dick...that's some good propagandizationing right there. You think I should take a camera along with us too?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #92 September 6, 2011 [***eply]As I said...if this was all choreographed, what a nice touch. I wonder who wrote the script? Quote Me too Bro ! What is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #93 September 6, 2011 Quote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #94 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? LOL! !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #95 September 6, 2011 QuoteWhat is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Do you think that'll hold up in court?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jonstark 8 #96 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. Quote The Empire State Building was also struck by an aircraft and the resulting fire din't result in collapse so can we agree to cut the odds to 66%? Boeing 737ER into WTS 229,000 pounds empty weight 450,000 gross weight 530 MPH Struck WTS at max speed for effect. Fire never controlled 1944 Boeing B-25 into ESB 21,000 pounds empty weight 33,000 pounds loaded 42,000 max when armed 230 MPH Struck ESB at slow maneuvering speed looking for nearby airport in fog fire extinguished in 40 minutes Your assertion that the antique aircraft hitting the Empire state is comparable is not plausible. That a/c was travelling at a far slower speed, carried far less energy to the impact, had less fuel which probably splashed all over the exterior of the building and that fuel carried far less energy. Apples and Oranges. Do NOT try to lay that nanothermite crap on this thread. We're talking about government interference with the privilege to operate a light aircraft legally. We are not talking about conspiracies. We are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #97 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't always agree with Kallend, but the title of the thread includes the words "Small Airplane". So? We're not confined to talk about only exactly what is specified in the title. And how small is "small"? Is an Otter a "small" airplane? Technically, yes. A Twin Otter (DHC-6 300) is legally a "small" aircraft. http://faaglossary.com/small-aircraft-faa-regulatory-definition-from-14-cfr-1-1/ But the airliners JohnRich needs to make his case were VERY far from small.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #98 September 6, 2011 QuoteWe are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. Agreed. Vociferously so. But, that's what the average American's need for feeling "safe from the bad men" hath wrought. Just an opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #99 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote And imagine the devastation from a biological warfare product dispensed over major cities from crop-dusters. I have posed this exact question to an Army chemist who has been in research and development of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical warfare protection and decontamination for 35 yrs. My position has always been that a light a/c is the tactical equivalent of a VW Beetle. He totally concurred. Using a blistering agent one would have to fly very close to a very dense concentration of people, his example was the Million Man March on DC, to possibly injure a few people. Anthrax, Plague, Pox would be next to impossible to dispense enough spores in concentrations able to infect anyone. A tactical nuke might be somewhat effective if detonated above a tightly packed gathering. What pisses me off is that Homeland security is singling out General Aviation as a bigger threat than U-Haul. They have millions of us jumping through hoops, states and municipalities pissing money away on bogus security fences, ID checks, etc. They want to curb my freedom to make their jobs easier. They want to do that by making me and my little Cessna scary to the public. jon Yes, but look what Pussy Galore could have done with a Cherokee 140. if it hadn't been for James Bond.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #100 September 7, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Let's not start on flight double o seven right now. Certainly that wasn't a spy mission? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #93 September 6, 2011 Quote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #94 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? LOL! !!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #95 September 6, 2011 QuoteWhat is obvious is that it was scripted. Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. Do you think that'll hold up in court?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonstark 8 #96 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote >If you are asking if structural failure could/did result from jet fuel fires, it most assuredly could/did. Quote The Empire State Building was also struck by an aircraft and the resulting fire din't result in collapse so can we agree to cut the odds to 66%? Boeing 737ER into WTS 229,000 pounds empty weight 450,000 gross weight 530 MPH Struck WTS at max speed for effect. Fire never controlled 1944 Boeing B-25 into ESB 21,000 pounds empty weight 33,000 pounds loaded 42,000 max when armed 230 MPH Struck ESB at slow maneuvering speed looking for nearby airport in fog fire extinguished in 40 minutes Your assertion that the antique aircraft hitting the Empire state is comparable is not plausible. That a/c was travelling at a far slower speed, carried far less energy to the impact, had less fuel which probably splashed all over the exterior of the building and that fuel carried far less energy. Apples and Oranges. Do NOT try to lay that nanothermite crap on this thread. We're talking about government interference with the privilege to operate a light aircraft legally. We are not talking about conspiracies. We are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #97 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't always agree with Kallend, but the title of the thread includes the words "Small Airplane". So? We're not confined to talk about only exactly what is specified in the title. And how small is "small"? Is an Otter a "small" airplane? Technically, yes. A Twin Otter (DHC-6 300) is legally a "small" aircraft. http://faaglossary.com/small-aircraft-faa-regulatory-definition-from-14-cfr-1-1/ But the airliners JohnRich needs to make his case were VERY far from small.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites aphid 0 #98 September 6, 2011 QuoteWe are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. Agreed. Vociferously so. But, that's what the average American's need for feeling "safe from the bad men" hath wrought. Just an opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #99 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote And imagine the devastation from a biological warfare product dispensed over major cities from crop-dusters. I have posed this exact question to an Army chemist who has been in research and development of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical warfare protection and decontamination for 35 yrs. My position has always been that a light a/c is the tactical equivalent of a VW Beetle. He totally concurred. Using a blistering agent one would have to fly very close to a very dense concentration of people, his example was the Million Man March on DC, to possibly injure a few people. Anthrax, Plague, Pox would be next to impossible to dispense enough spores in concentrations able to infect anyone. A tactical nuke might be somewhat effective if detonated above a tightly packed gathering. What pisses me off is that Homeland security is singling out General Aviation as a bigger threat than U-Haul. They have millions of us jumping through hoops, states and municipalities pissing money away on bogus security fences, ID checks, etc. They want to curb my freedom to make their jobs easier. They want to do that by making me and my little Cessna scary to the public. jon Yes, but look what Pussy Galore could have done with a Cherokee 140. if it hadn't been for James Bond.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanJohnson 0 #100 September 7, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Let's not start on flight double o seven right now. Certainly that wasn't a spy mission? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 4 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,131 #97 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't always agree with Kallend, but the title of the thread includes the words "Small Airplane". So? We're not confined to talk about only exactly what is specified in the title. And how small is "small"? Is an Otter a "small" airplane? Technically, yes. A Twin Otter (DHC-6 300) is legally a "small" aircraft. http://faaglossary.com/small-aircraft-faa-regulatory-definition-from-14-cfr-1-1/ But the airliners JohnRich needs to make his case were VERY far from small.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aphid 0 #98 September 6, 2011 QuoteWe are talking about a government agency with too much power and not enough of substance to act upon so they mess with the little guy. Agreed. Vociferously so. But, that's what the average American's need for feeling "safe from the bad men" hath wrought. Just an opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #99 September 6, 2011 QuoteQuote And imagine the devastation from a biological warfare product dispensed over major cities from crop-dusters. I have posed this exact question to an Army chemist who has been in research and development of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical warfare protection and decontamination for 35 yrs. My position has always been that a light a/c is the tactical equivalent of a VW Beetle. He totally concurred. Using a blistering agent one would have to fly very close to a very dense concentration of people, his example was the Million Man March on DC, to possibly injure a few people. Anthrax, Plague, Pox would be next to impossible to dispense enough spores in concentrations able to infect anyone. A tactical nuke might be somewhat effective if detonated above a tightly packed gathering. What pisses me off is that Homeland security is singling out General Aviation as a bigger threat than U-Haul. They have millions of us jumping through hoops, states and municipalities pissing money away on bogus security fences, ID checks, etc. They want to curb my freedom to make their jobs easier. They want to do that by making me and my little Cessna scary to the public. jon Yes, but look what Pussy Galore could have done with a Cherokee 140. if it hadn't been for James Bond.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJohnson 0 #100 September 7, 2011 QuoteQuote Otherwise one would have to believe that the best military in the world, one we pay billions of dollars per year to maintain, couldn't deal with the threat of 4 passenger planes. It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? Let's not start on flight double o seven right now. Certainly that wasn't a spy mission? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
