"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
y.com...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
.. .

"Duster" wrote in message
. ..
Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is
almost
better
though..

Duster

Tarver cannot get it through his head that having the air
handling
units
operating under the CWT when the A/C is stationary is like
putting
a
pressure cooker with a small amount of fuel in it, on a stove
at
low
heat.

Nesbitt can't get it through his head that a 747 is not a bomb
and
there
is
no design philosophy to make airliners that are bombs at Boeing.

Hopefully your skull is thick enough to deflect the flying "Bits &
Pieces"
when an FAE occurs.

You mean aluminium dust?

Sorry, Nesbitt, no aluminium dust bombs, no hydrogen and propane
potato
gun,
just an empty fuel tank. What you write demonstrates just how
deeply
Hall's
NTSB implanted their fantasy in your mind.

Splappy you are beginning to get so far out in the "Briar Patch"
beyond
the
"Facility's Left Field Fence" you can barely be "Heard".

I am completely mainstream. It is your insistance on lying about the
reliability of the 747 that is out in the ozone, Ralph. There is
nothing
wrong with the airplane, as it comes from the factory.

Your "burning electricity caused section 40 to fall off" theory
sure finds fault with the electrical fault isolation design and
you accuse Boeing of installing an undocumented section
to boot! Suggest you brush up on chapters 6 and 24.

Undocumented in what way, Jimmy loon?

If you mean the unaproved data you mechanics are fed, yes, what you are told
about the equipment you work on is often wrong; that is the nature of every
MM ever produced.

If you mean to say that my posts about the section 41/42 join failing, your
monkey ignorance about inches still has people lauging.