Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In article >,
>>"xerj" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?
>>
>>Yep!!
>>Along with the F-14 Tomcats.
>>I understand there are a lot of parts they need now available in the
>>Arizona desert now.
>
>
> As far as C-130 parts there are several in the street in Tehran.
>
>

was that ment to be funny?

Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?

In article >,
"xerj" > wrote:

> Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?

Yep!!
Along with the F-14 Tomcats.
I understand there are a lot of parts they need now available in the
Arizona desert now.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "xerj" > wrote:
>
>> Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?
>
> Yep!!
> Along with the F-14 Tomcats.
> I understand there are a lot of parts they need now available in the
> Arizona desert now.

As far as C-130 parts there are several in the street in Tehran.

Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?

yes they are - at least that's what the AVWEB article i read stated.

francois

I like the fact that they are blaming the crash on Americans.
Apparently, if we were selling them parts for their military aircraft,
this wouldn't have happened.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message oups.com...
>I like the fact that they are blaming the crash on Americans.
> Apparently, if we were selling them parts for their military aircraft,
> this wouldn't have happened.
>
> -Robert
>

They are probably blaming the Americans because they are not selling the parts to them...

OT, remember the guys that were convicted and sent to jail for conspiring to sell C-130 parts to Iran?

..Blueskies. wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message oups.com...
> >I like the fact that they are blaming the crash on Americans.
> > Apparently, if we were selling them parts for their military aircraft,
> > this wouldn't have happened.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> They are probably blaming the Americans because they are not selling the parts to them...
>
> OT, remember the guys that were convicted and sent to jail for conspiring to sell C-130 parts to Iran?

So Reagan didn't throw in any spare parts in exchange for our hostages
?

JG

> So Reagan didn't throw in any spare parts in exchange for our hostages
> ?
>
> JG


Any he would have given them way back then.. would be well used up by now..

BT

Israel has been buying parts from us and selling them to Iran for
years.

Started with the hostage operation as I recall.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:12:53 -0800, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

>> So Reagan didn't throw in any spare parts in exchange for our hostages
>> ?
>>
>> JG
>
>
>Any he would have given them way back then.. would be well used up by now..
>
>BT
>

"Arketip" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>"xerj" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?
>>>
>>>Yep!!
>>>Along with the F-14 Tomcats.
>>>I understand there are a lot of parts they need now available in the
>>>Arizona desert now.
>>
>>
>> As far as C-130 parts there are several in the street in Tehran.
>
> was that ment to be funny?

Yep and it was. Lighten up, you'll never make it out alive!

------------------------------------------
DW

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
> Israel has been buying parts from us and selling them to Iran for
> years.
>
> Started with the hostage operation as I recall.
>
> Big John
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````
>


So what happened to the 'bad guys' who were convicted to selling the C-130 parts to Iran? Sounds like they were bad guys
because they were cutting out the middle man (Israel?)

OH YEA! We sold lots of aircraft to Iran when they "said" they liked
us! The better question is where do they get the parts to keep them
flying? Oh, that right they are starting to fall out of the sky!

xerj wrote:

> Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?

how can that building still stand after c-130 hit it?
the building still has 10 stories and any people can walk in and out
as I saw in the pictures

compare to 911

Darkwing wrote:
> "Arketip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>>"john smith" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>"xerj" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are they legacy aircraft from the days of the Shah?
>>>>
>>>>Yep!!
>>>>Along with the F-14 Tomcats.
>>>>I understand there are a lot of parts they need now available in the
>>>>Arizona desert now.
>>>
>>>
>>>As far as C-130 parts there are several in the street in Tehran.
>>
>>was that ment to be funny?
>
>
> Yep and it was. Lighten up, you'll never make it out alive!
>
> ------------------------------------------
> DW
>
>
>

Just asking, you need to lighten up a bit too :-)

C-130 is smaller, slower. It may not have carried as much fuel. The WTC
stood for several hours until fire weakened the structure enough for it
to collapse. It is a lot easier to fight a fire in a ten story building
than a fire in a 100 story building.

cjcampbell wrote:
> C-130 is smaller, slower. It may not have carried as much fuel. The WTC
> stood for several hours until fire weakened the structure enough for it
> to collapse. It is a lot easier to fight a fire in a ten story building
> than a fire in a 100 story building.

The fuel only started the fires at the WTC. What kept them burning for long
enough to collapse was the tons of paper in the offices. They're probably not as
paper happy in Iran.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

> What kept them burning for long enough to collapse was the tons of paper in the offices.

Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
I'm not convinced. Do you have a reference for paper as the cause of
the collapse?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Did the structural steel actually melt or deform under the loads?

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>> What kept them burning for long enough to collapse was the tons of
>> paper in the offices.
>
> Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
> I'm not convinced. Do you have a reference for paper as the cause of
> the collapse?
>
> Jose
> --
> You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"sfb" > wrote in message news:Kc8mf.27746$SY.17277@trnddc06...
> Did the structural steel actually melt or deform under the loads?

The steel did not melt, but rather lost strength due to the heat. The
fireproofing was not rated for the length of time the burning fuel caused,
nor that high of temperatures. I am also skeptical about the paper claim.
I am sure it contributed, but there was one hell of a lot of fuel, contained
in a relatively small area, burning very hot.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "sfb" > wrote in message
> news:Kc8mf.27746$SY.17277@trnddc06...
>> Did the structural steel actually melt or deform under the loads?
>
> The steel did not melt, but rather lost strength due to the heat. The
> fireproofing was not rated for the length of time the burning fuel
> caused, nor that high of temperatures. I am also skeptical about the
> paper claim. I am sure it contributed, but there was one hell of a lot
> of fuel, contained in a relatively small area, burning very hot.

Not to mention the force of the impact likely blew what fireproofing
there was right off the structure.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!

George Patterson wrote:

>
>
> The fuel only started the fires at the WTC. What kept them burning for
> long enough to collapse was the tons of paper in the offices. They're
> probably not as paper happy in Iran.

Nah, once the airliners punches a hole in the building too much air got
let in. That's why the fire kept burning.

Jose wrote:

> Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
> I'm not convinced. Do you have a reference for paper as the cause of
> the collapse?

Paper *ignites* at a relatively low temperature. Even that is higher than the
ignition point of jet fuel. Either will produce extremely high temperatures.

As for references. William Langewiesche, "American Ground: Unbuilding the World
Trade Center." Excerpts were published in the July and September 2002 issues of
the Atlantic Monthly.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

> > Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
> > I'm not convinced.

Ever read "FARENHEIT 451"?

john smith wrote:

>>>Paper burns at a lower temperature, probably too low to melt steel, so
>>>I'm not convinced.
>
>
> Ever read "FARENHEIT 451"?

Good book, good movie

The steel did not melt, as examination of the wreckage showed. What
happened was that the steel expanded from the heat, breaking the
concrete supports. It also lost as much as 90% of its strength. The
fire was not just fuel, or even paper, but also furniture, carpets, and
every other combustible in the buildings.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Actually, the whole article does a pretty good job of debunking WTC
9/11 conspiracy theories.

I note that they did not consult Moller on the WTC conspiracies, but
accredited engineers and experienced emergency workers. PM has a lot of
different writers and many different consultants, some better than
others. This appears to be one of the better researched articles.

One trouble is that no media source is likely to be any more accurate.
Isn't it CNN that is currently touting "Many of those who do end up
here, seldom make it alive" as an example of clarity? :P

"cjcampbell" > wrote \
>
> Actually, the whole article does a pretty good job of debunking WTC
> 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I tend to take Popular Mechanics on the same level of "correctness" as the
National Inquirer, so although you are correct, it isn't because you saw it
in PM.

Didn't PM love Moller's Skycar? Hmmmm.
--
Jim in NC

>> Ever read "FARENHEIT 451"?

("Arketip" wrote)
> Good book, good movie


Some fun on The West Wing when a young Jed Bartlet points out that his local
library is banning a book about banning books.

Two Cathedrals - End of Season Two.


Montblack

Is it anything like Michael Moore's Ferrenheit 911?

Yes, both are fiction.

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Is it anything like Michael Moore's Ferrenheit 911?
>

"sfb" > wrote in message news:D3xmf.7437$Wo2.5519@trnddc04...
> Yes, both are fiction.

ROTF-LOL!
--
Jim in NC

sfb wrote:

> Yes, both are fiction.

Excellent!

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.