Malaysian airlines: the rise of Al Queada?

I could name numerous West Texas roads that are suitable for landings and ... Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Some people cannot think out of the pointed box on their head. CJzero is one!

In fact, if he hadn't thought of it or it even remotely challenges his post...

...............he starts calling names.

It's mindsets like his that resulted in 911 ... ignoring the dots and pretending.

you are one stupid mother fucker... this entire incident is so far over your head its laughable Originally Posted by CJ7

Of course, no one has yet disproven my point about where you can land a motherfucking triple 7, have they, stupid asshole?

Some people cannot think out of the pointed box on their head. CJzero is one!

In fact, if he hadn't thought of it or it even remotely challenges his post...

...............he starts calling names.

It's mindsets like his that resulted in 911 ... ignoring the dots and pretending. Originally Posted by LexusLover

By not challenging it he has essentially conceded my point about all the places it could land. Of course, he isn't big enough to admit he is wrong, he just keeps flailing away like an asshole.

Did you just call someone a "miserable maggot?"

Really?

Substance over style. Shit over shinola. Ass over class.

He's back. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Et Tu, Brute?
I haven't seen an effective challenge to my point yet. Ironically, I had substance in my post (about where you could land the plane) and your post did not!!

I fear that CJ is gone. He has been replaced by an idiot. Lets take your imposter to task for a few errors; I never said that EVERYONE was in on it. That was something you said. How did Usama Bin Laden hide in plain sight in Pakistan? I suppose you're going to tell me that no one ever saw him come and go.



This is a C-130 plane. According to the book, it takes about 3,600 feet to take off in and it takes about 2,500 feet to land on. According to the book. Do you think a C-130 can take off and land in less distance? How much less if that is what you said? How about less than 1,000 feet? It can you know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
The book says that you have to have 8,000 feet to land or take off in a 777 but that is maximum take off weight. If you are not worried about being sued by some distraught passenger I imagine that you can land and/or take off in less than 5,000 feet...or 4,000 feet.

As for identifying one such runway, that is the problem. Not that they don't exist but we took them off the map if they were ever on a map. I suppose you could roll out your map from 1945 and look. I don't have mine handy. So you're going to tell me that we never, understand NEVER built a runway in the middle of nowhere and then just left it? That is what you're going to hang your hat on?

Besides a sense of humor, the libs are lacking that all important imagination that we lacked in 2001.

News flash: According to the wingers the triple seven has been located on a dirt road in west Texas. All passengers are safe and eating at Berries.

I fear that CJ is gone. He has been replaced by an idiot. Lets take your imposter to task for a few errors; I never said that EVERYONE was in on it. That was something you said. How did Usama Bin Laden hide in plain sight in Pakistan? I suppose you're going to tell me that no one ever saw him come and go.



This is a C-130 plane. According to the book, it takes about 3,600 feet to take off in and it takes about 2,500 feet to land on. According to the book. Do you think a C-130 can take off and land in less distance? How much less if that is what you said? How about less than 1,000 feet? It can you know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
The book says that you have to have 8,000 feet to land or take off in a 777 but that is maximum take off weight. If you are not worried about being sued by some distraught passenger I imagine that you can land and/or take off in less than 5,000 feet...or 4,000 feet.

As for identifying one such runway, that is the problem. Not that they don't exist but we took them off the map if they were ever on a map. I suppose you could roll out your map from 1945 and look. I don't have mine handy. So you're going to tell me that we never, understand NEVER built a runway in the middle of nowhere and then just left it? That is what you're going to hang your hat on?

Besides a sense of humor, the libs are lacking that all important imagination that we lacked in 2001. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

a c130 weighs 75,000 lbs

a Boeing 777 weighs 700,000 lbs

you stupid fucking dolt


not one of you morons offering your opinions of 777 capabilities have a clue about landing an airplane yet you're all experts and IDIOTS.

You could put it down on a highway with 5000 feet of straight lines, about a mile in length, if the wings had side clearance. If you had to do so, you could land it in hard packed dirt. (FYI, in Australia, the hard packed dirt is so good that they set rails in it directly for trains) Not good for the long run, but you could do it in an emergency. Perhaps you should apologize to JD.
Someone once landed a 737 on a fucking levee in the New Orleans area. So what if the triple 7 is heavier - what matters is the weight distribution per wheel, the surface area of the wheels, the number and quality of the wheels, etc. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You are an idiot, too.

JD thinks they are going to re-purpose it for a terrorist attack.

How are you going to get if off the ground again? It takes even LONGER runways for takeoff. Read the link.

http://planes.findthebest.com/q/291/...ed-to-take-off

A modern jet will go right through the surface of any normal highway.

Then there is that pesky little problem of all the people who drive on that road reporting the missing jet.

So you can't land a 777 unless you have a witness? It that what you are saying, fuckface? There is no trace of a crash yet, so the plane might be somewhere safe and hidden.
I could name numerous West Texas roads that are suitable for landings and are fairly deserted so go fuck yourself you faggot fucking dirtbag mother fucking cocksucking piece of shit.
Don't you think other areas of the world are flat and have roads going through relatively uninhabited areas? You are going to look stupid as a fucking stump when the real story comes out, aren't you, you miserable maggot? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Yes. Name a West Texas road surface that is BIG enough to land a 777 and take it off again where no one drives on it for days at a time and no one lives near it to see what is going on.

The challenge is on.

You and JBIdiot have a conundrum. Any road that is big enough to land a 777 is going to be heavily used and have lots of witnesses.

Any road that is deserted for extended periods of time is going to be far too small to land a 777 and then take it off again.

Not to mention how you refuel it in the middle of nowhere and what you do with 239 bodies.

Of course, no one has yet disproven my point about where you can land a motherfucking triple 7, have they, stupid asshole? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Read my responses asshole.

And remember that the burden of proof for your stupid theory is ON YOU. We don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it - at least one case.

So, YOU identify a highway in the middle of nowhere that is big enough to land a 777 and then take it off again - and yet deserted enough that no one lives or works near it and no one would drive on it for hours at a time.

The clock is running.

This is a C-130 plane. According to the book, it takes about 3,600 feet to take off in and it takes about 2,500 feet to land on. According to the book. Do you think a C-130 can take off and land in less distance? How much less if that is what you said? How about less than 1,000 feet? It can you know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

The book says that you have to have 8,000 feet to land or take off in a 777 but that is maximum take off weight. If you are not worried about being sued by some distraught passenger I imagine that you can land and/or take off in less than 5,000 feet...or 4,000 feet.

As for identifying one such runway, that is the problem. Not that they don't exist but we took them off the map if they were ever on a map. I suppose you could roll out your map from 1945 and look. I don't have mine handy. So you're going to tell me that we never, understand NEVER built a runway in the middle of nowhere and then just left it? That is what you're going to hang your hat on? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What book are you talking about, you drunken fool?

Are you really comparing a modern jetliner to a C-130?

A C-130 is TINY and LIGHTWEIGHT compared to a 777. It was designed to take off and land on small strips in the jungle and elsewhere. A 777 was designed to land on LONG runways made from REINFORCED concrete.

And where are you getting all of your numbers from asshole?

A 777 takes over 8,000 feet to land and that is the SHORTER distance.

It takes over 11,000 feet to takeoff. Read the link:

http://planes.findthebest.com/l/291/Boeing-777-300

So again, identify a landing strip - highway or runway - that is 8,000 feet long, covered by thick concrete in good condition, in a deserted location where there would be no witnesses.

And if your theory includes the plane taking off again, then the runway has to be at least 10,000 feet long and you have to explain how they dump all the 239 passengers and crew and their luggage in order to lighten the load - ALL without leaving a trace..

And then REFUEL in the middle of nowhere in order to take off again - again without leaving a trace.

Who was it that said that airliners couldn't be hijacked anymore?

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?

The point that I was so obviously trying to make was that the designers have put numbers in books for take off and landing. The people that actually fly them generally know those numbers are very conservative. Like the example of the C-130. It can actually take off and land in less than half of what the designers imagined. It is probably the same with the 777 and if you don't know that then you are not a pilot. You can stop a plane very quickly with reverse thrusters, hit the runway just right with full flaps, and judiciously applied brakes.

Why you missed something so simple I have to think that you want to remain stupid and you're doing a damned good job of it. As for the people who watch it take off, isn't it a little late by that point? I have to point out that I was a full week ahead of the curve. Few of you could keep up. My opinion still stands up under scrutiny and yours have failed.

And I suppose I have point out again to XNYRK that I am actually comparing written limits compared to actual limits. Only an idiot would think that I am comparing the performance of a 40 year old design of a military aircraft to a state of the art passenger jet. Like I said, try to keep up.

a c130 weighs 75,000 lbs

a Boeing 777 weighs 700,000 lbs

you stupid fucking dolt


not one of you morons offering your opinions of 777 capabilities have a clue about landing an airplane yet you're all experts and IDIOTS. Originally Posted by CJ7

I think you should tell all the dolts about your landing experience with large passenger planes. Excluding your experience with Microsoft Flight Simulator 95.

Jim

Read my responses asshole.

And remember that the burden of proof for your stupid theory is ON YOU. We don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it - at least one case.

So, YOU identify a highway in the middle of nowhere that is big enough to land a 777 and then take it off again - and yet deserted enough that no one lives or works near it and no one would drive on it for hours at a time.

The clock is running. Originally Posted by ExNYer

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.

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.