http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-sodomite.html
Good stuff
Yes, it has pictures.
Who was it that said that airliners couldn't be hijacked anymore?Keep reading. You got half of it.
The door to the cockpit couldn't be broken into?
The passengers would attack the hijackers?
All anyone could do is plant a bomb.......??????
Who was that poster? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
Once you discard your obsession with men's asses ...Will have to give you one, I went back but was unable to find the source so either it was wrong or I copied it wrong. The correct is ACARS Aircraft communication reporting system. Either way if it is turned off no data comes from the engines. It will "ping" once a hr.
.. you can enlighten all those masses about "The ASCARS system" ...
Do you read blogs on the side then quote "alphabet soup" to look intelligent?
Your intellectual prowess must have matched those "connecting the dots' pre-911 ... sad. "Bloviating" bullshit, like you poop in your diapers. Talking the shit isn't walking the shit .... but you are the prototype internet bullshitter.
You resort to name calling when your "math" and "logic" are full of holes ..
... in this case ... gaping holes.... which you apparently know a lot about.
I'm sure glad you weren't a "sonar" operator ... if it ain't Nintendo you are lost! Originally Posted by LexusLover
I was hoping that you would be bright enough to do a little research and man enough to admit you were wrong. Instead, you fell for the trap.Keep trying asshole.
Please read the link but I will hit one of the main points for you:
- Find someplace to land. The 777 is a big plane — once Boeing retires the 747, it will be the biggest in its stable — but in an emergency it can be put down on a relatively short runway. “If I have a fire in flight, I’m prepared to put it down on anything above 5,000 feet,” says Solan.(An American Airlines 777-200 pilot) “You could put it on a highway.” A runway wouldn’t even necessarily have to be paved; hard-packed dirt would likely be good enough. Throw some camouflage netting over the plane once you’re on the ground, and you’re good.
BTW, drive by the 6666 ranch on the way to Lubbock someday, and tell me you couldn't put her down somewhere near that place, you New York asshole. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
A Boeing 737-700 weighs about 150,000 pounds and has 6 tires, so that is 37500 pounds per tire.Keep trying asshole.
One of them landed in a dirt levee near New Orleans. (It later took off from the same levee)
A Boeing 777-200 weighs about 700,000 pounds but has 16 tires, which is only 43750 pounds per tire.
According to Boeing's published specs for rigid pavements, you can land a 777 on 11 inches (thickness) of rigid pavement under typical conditions.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...s/777rsec7.pdf
Typical highways have 10 inches (thickness) of material on top and another 10-15 inches (thickness) of sub base.
They are usually 12 foot lane widths, so with nothing but a center stripe, you have 48 feet across on a 4 lane highway. A 777 has a 36 foot wide wheel spacing for the outer wheels, measured from the outside to outside facing the airplane straight ahead.
You could land it in many different places, though you wouldn't want to do it and it would be hard to conceal, but not impossible.
P.S. Read and learn, asshole. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer
Actually I just went to Bing and looked up "maps". I found several very straight coast roads running down Indonesia and Malaysia with no houses on them. I also found a few two mile long straight aways with no connecting roads. Runways? You see, I never said it was an island, deserted or otherwise. There are highways in Kansas that you could put a 747 down on with no one around to watch. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornName them. Post a link.
I will predict that flight 370 ended up in the drink in the Southern Indian Ocean... "when the tanks went dry" .. Originally Posted by LexusLoverActually, that is my prediction, too.
Actually, that is my prediction, too. Originally Posted by ExNYerAnd mine as well.
Commercial airliners (and some converted to cargo or tech equipment carriers) frequently make "short" takeoffs in zones of conflict in which an easy, lumbering lift-off "BY THE BOOK" puts them at risk of small arms fire, if not shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles. Using the "standard' length of the runway is not acceptable and puts everyone at risk. So posting from an "owner's manual" resource or published manufacturer stats is not relevant.
At or near sea level provides an opportunity for shorter take off distances.
But, given the current "state of the rumors" ..
I will predict that flight 370 ended up in the drink in the Southern Indian Ocean... "when the tanks went dry" ..
......whether hijacked or otherwise. A scenario is that a take-over of some sort was in progress and the "defense" was taking the aircraft above its ceiling with oxygen deprivation as the disabling mechanism with a return descent to normalize the conditions with auto pilot engaged to maintain altitude away from populated areas as a last resort to protect the loss of other lives from an impact in a populated area. that would account for the abrupt reversal in course, high altitude, return to lower altitude, and constant flight for the duration of the existing fuel load in a generally uninhabited and undeveloped part of the world.
I do not believe flight 370 had sufficient fuel to run the gauntlet along the "Northern Route"! Originally Posted by LexusLover
must have been a typo when you claimed a 777 200ER weighs 150,000 lbs eh sport ?Where did I clam that .... "sport"? Are you drinking again .. or is the just damage?
you can barely spell Hoilday Inn Originally Posted by CJ7