Strange But (Un)True?

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:29:25 -0400, Morgans wrote:

Responding to nut jobs in _ANY_ way give the nut what he wants.

It is the reason that this group is all but dead and gone, from the last nut
in here.

Please, everyone, let them babble. Most of us know the difference, and
those that do not won't be influenced by reason or facts.

Especialy you Pinnino, quit being a stupid ego driven MF assklown.

What was I thinking?

-- Jim in NC

You weren't.

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:06:24 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:36:54 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Hanjour

The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us...ompetence.html


And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
test pilot.

First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
and expertise.

This is out of your league, Fairbairn, plain and simple. You're a proven
quagmirist know-it-nothing with an overblown ego and a peanut head for a
brain.

"No-one cares what you "believe", just as your beliefs about weather and
climate have been clearly shown to be ridiculous - negating any
comment you wish to make on other areas of climate science."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/v_Z7jYtLlsI

"If I can be bothered to show you the facts, the least you can do is to
bother to reply, before you try to spread more crap."

Your "expertise" extends to never building an LSA with a measly 80hp
Jabiru P.O.S.

Stick your head back inside Mary's drums where comfort awaits you.

OK

Good. See how quickly you learn from me?

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:08:07 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The Pentagon is a pretty big

Thanks for that really useful, timely and engaging information.

fart

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 23:41:51 -0400, Bullitt Silverlight wrote:

On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 19:29:25 -0400, Morgans wrote:

Responding to nut jobs in _ANY_ way give the nut what he wants.

It is the reason that this group is all but dead and gone, from the last nut
in here.

Please, everyone, let them babble. Most of us know the difference, and
those that do not won't be influenced by reason or facts.

Especialy you Pinnino, quit being a stupid ego driven MF assklown.

What was I thinking?

-- Jim in NC

You weren't.

It's in Pinhead's nature. Let him be the moron he is genetically
predestined.

I'll be blunt about this. Tom, you and your conspiracy buddies have
"busted your checkride." You haven't provided anything that relates to
the "r.a. piloting" group. Pick up your political garbage and go wash
dishes somewhere. You don't belong here.

Flying a 767 is kind of like driving a great big car. You turn the
wheel and it goes that way. Push the wheel forward and things on the
ground get big real fast. Even a terrorist can do it.

The skill part is in maintaining straight and level flight ..... nailing
altitude and heading, and keeping it there for a long time. After that,
after you are tired, nailing the center of the glide slope inside the
outer marker on a dark stormy night, when the weather demons are shaking
things up a bit. That's the skill part, that's where real pilots earn
their bones. The rest is just another day at the office. Even a
terrorist can do it.


Tom wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:08:07 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

The Pentagon is a pretty big

Thanks for that really useful, timely and engaging information.

fart

In article ,
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

In article , Tom wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 17:43:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

In article , Tom wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 12:58:36 -0400, Quaalude wrote:

The reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow
the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half
the distance of its wingspan ¡X until speed is drastically reduced,
which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

You're saying there's a magic cushion that prevents aircraft at cruise
from approaching close to the ground?

No and you damn well know that is a complete distortion of the truth.

It looks like you're claiming that it's pysically impossible for an
aircraft moving at high speed to approach within half a wingspan of
the ground. Is that what you're claiming or not?

If so, I can assure you you're wrong, and if not, then what's so
implausible about an aircraft contacting the ground before hitting
the pentagon?

That's what he learned when he got his Aero Engineering degree at Boxtop
U. He got his flying experience from the comic books.

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:06:24 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:36:54 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article , Tom
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:38:35 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Hanjour

The instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had
hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us...ncompetence.ht
ml


And yet, Orval Fairbairn asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a
stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation
test pilot.

First of all, if that maneuver would "press the limits of even the most
experienced test pilot," I would have to question both his experience
and expertise.

This is out of your league, Fairbairn, plain and simple. You're a proven
quagmirist know-it-nothing with an overblown ego and a peanut head for a
brain.

"No-one cares what you "believe", just as your beliefs about weather and
climate have been clearly shown to be ridiculous - negating any
comment you wish to make on other areas of climate science."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.global-warming/v_Z7jYtLlsI

"If I can be bothered to show you the facts, the least you can do is to
bother to reply, before you try to spread more crap."

Your "expertise" extends to never building an LSA with a measly 80hp
Jabiru P.O.S.

Stick your head back inside Mary's drums where comfort awaits you.

OK

Good. See how quickly you learn from me?

I learned that you are nothing but a poseur and that you have no
expertise to contribute in a variety of fields.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:47:56 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

I

Sorry, you've been dismissed as a fraud.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:30:45 -0500, dgw wrote:

I'll be blunt about this. Tom, you and your conspiracy buddies have
"busted your checkride." You haven't provided anything that relates to
the "r.a. piloting" group blah blah blah

Then **** off.

On Oct 3, 3:02*pm, wrote:
Tom wrote:

cut

Babbling nut case.

--
Jim Pennino

Please don't feed the squirrels. They crap on
the picnic table.

Thanks.