Looking for B-17 video...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

Have been dealing with the "Kooks/Loons" that have been drifting through ADA
swearing a "Bunch of Saudi's" could not have pulled off 9/11 because of
????? The same bunch also expound/argue differing "Red Herring Preposterous
B/S Theories" as to why it could not have been "Hijacked Commercial A/C"
involved in the 9/11 incidents.

Which group do you frequent?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

None of them Ralph...I did that till my fingertips developed
calluses and my nerves started fraying then I discovered this
neat little symbol shaped like a red circle with a slash through
it marked 'ignore thread' (whatever that means!) and all those
troublesome posts disappeared!...viola!...

I dropped ada a couple years ago when ralfie mailbombed me with
about 6 pictures of 'his' a/c...locked my email up for a week.
--

-Gord.

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
news

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

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

-Gord.
Merry Christmas to you/yours Gord. Glad to see the "Sensible Old
Hands" are
still around/lurking ADA.

Look here, Nesbitt, as long as you are calling 747s "bombs", you are
a nut.

Why does my wishing some 1 Merry Christmas cause you such "Heart
Burn".

No, Ralph, it is you attempting to include yourself in some "sensible
old
hands" group, that gives me alarm; as you are a nut calling 747s
"bombs".
Do you have any clue how humiliated Cal Tech is for that little stunt?

I will not debate you over the fine points of Electrical Engineering,
simply
because I do not understand the "Fine Points" of same.

You argue from a "Off the Cuff Perspective" without a true understanding
of
the hazards inherent in the "Basic Boeing CWT Design Philosophy" under
specified circumstances.

Your arguement that the 737 CWT wire bundles covered by advisory circular
has anything to do with a "design philosophy" is delusional. A mistake with
early 737 wire bundles does not translate into a 747 CWT problem.

From: "Tarver Engineering"

Your arguement that the 737 CWT wire bundles covered by advisory circular
has anything to do with a "design philosophy" is delusional. A mistake with
early 737 wire bundles does not translate into a 747 CWT problem.


Tarver, this thread was about B-17 video clips until you decided to attack
Nesbit on a totally unrelated subject. The question is why?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

Duster

"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.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"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.

That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.

Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...

Duster

"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.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
Design Philosophy".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote:

"Duster" wrote

Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

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.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing CWT
Design Philosophy".

Splaps Boy is correct in that the A/C is not a "bomb" in the
conventional sense of large object full of high explosive that is
gravity-dropped on a target, but a Boeing 7x7 aircraft's CWT with the
right fuel-air mixture if detonated can equal several sticks of dynamite
in explosive power.

"John Mazor" wrote:

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote
"Duster" wrote in message

Holy **** and all I wanted was a video... hehe this is almost better
though..

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.

That, and Tarver being an engineer, reminds me of the old joke: an engineer
is someone who thinks that, if your left leg is in a bucket of hot water and
your right leg is in a bucket of ice, then on average, you're comfortable.

Keyboard!

"Duster" wrote in message
m...
Could you point me to the thread? This sounds intersting...

Duster

This has been an "On Going" exchange in many threads over a period of time.

Tarver being an EE can't get a grip on the concept that the "explosive
limits of fuel vapours in the Uleage of CWT's" vary with temp, pressure, &
air content as the vent system functions.

The normal protocal for ADA is to "Bottom Post", makeing it much easier to
follow.

Be warned to expect less than "Courterous Treatment" when dealing with
Tarver aka "Splaps Boy/Splappy" the self described font of all knowledge
things A/C & Aviation. If you do not believe this, just ask him.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"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.

There have been several incidents world wide where Boeing A/C of various
models have exploded sitting at gates, on ramps, taxing out, or shortly
after take off after sitting with the air handling units running under ~
empty CWT's.

There are now "Air Safety Directives" stipulating/requiring certain
operating protocols to minimize this hazard associated with the "Boeing
CWT
Design Philosophy".
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type