what happened to flight 77?

[Rosspilot]

OK--get ready for this:

I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.

http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html


www.Rosspilot.com

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> OK--get ready for this:
>
> I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.
>
> http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>


Insufficient data.

The Pentagon was no ordinary building. The walls and windows are extremely
strong (there was a documentary on the extremely rapid rebuilding effort
where some of the construction techniques and fortification features are
shown) and clearly some of the questions raised (eg, "where did the 5300
gallons of fuel go") are trivial to answer. I may be wrong, but I believe I
saw some early photos showing remains of engines right outside the building.

[Rosspilot]

OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and videotapes
disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look like
something is being covered up.


www.Rosspilot.com

[C J Campbell]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and videotapes
> disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look like
> something is being covered up.

Possibly sensitive information about building security or its contents -- it
is the Pentagon, after all.

[The Voices... I Hear the Voices]

> "Rosspilot" > wrote in message

> I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.

> > http://www.__PARANOIA_CAN_BE_FOUND_EVERYWHERE_.com

I'd really like to know if your paranoid, and why.

[Oh The Humanity]

> Rosspilot > wrote:

> That only makes it look like
> something is being covered up.

That's right Ross, thousands and thousand of Americans have been
sworn to secrecy, and have conspired to cover up the secret of the
century.

Of all the people in the world - It is you and you alone who has
started to unravel this conspiracy of silence.

And look Ross, the first piece of truthful tangible evidence that all
of America can sink it's teeth into - Posted to rec.aviation.piloting,
a well known newsgroup for uncovering the truth where every news
organization in the world fails to deliver - You can always count on
the truth here in a newsgroup for recreational pilots and armchair
lurkers.... Like me.

There it is for all of us to see - A german narration talking about
wooden reels of wire that didn't vaporize, windows that didn't explode,
toilets that didn't flush, papers that held no secrets, paint that
didn't burn, floors that didn't buckle, and of course people who
never died.... Oh the humanity.

And Ross you want to know what we think.

I think you should go flying today and get some fresh air.

[Rosspilot]

>I'd really like to know if your paranoid, and why.


Because everyone is out to get me.

<G>


www.Rosspilot.com

[gatt]

Interesting how Ross throws out something for people to kick around and,
instead, people
attack him personally.

Bummer, Ross. Unfortunately, the website appears to be down.

"The Voices... I Hear the Voices" > wrote in message
...
> > "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
>
> > I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.
>
> > > http://www.__PARANOIA_CAN_BE_FOUND_EVERYWHERE_.com
>
> I'd really like to know if your paranoid, and why.

[gatt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message

> > OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and
videotapes
> > disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look like
> > something is being covered up.
>
> Possibly sensitive information about building security or its contents --
it
> is the Pentagon, after all.

Yeah, it could have been procedural. IE, whatever was filmed may or may not
contain sensitive information, but as a matter of policy it's not made
available to the public. That eliminates the risk that something sensitive,
however irrelevant to the incident, doesn't get leaked by accident.

-c

[Peter Duniho]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, it could have been procedural. IE, whatever was filmed may or may
not
> contain sensitive information, but as a matter of policy it's not made
> available to the public. That eliminates the risk that something
sensitive,
> however irrelevant to the incident, doesn't get leaked by accident.

It also eliminates the possibility that someone might gain information
simply by the presence or lack of presence of sensitive information. If you
only hide video and other media containing sensitive information, it makes
it a lot easier for those looking for sensitive information to know where to
look.

[Rosspilot]

>Interesting how Ross throws out something for people to kick around and,
>instead, people
>attack him personally.
>
>Bummer, Ross.

Not really . . . but thanks. Going on Usenet with a thin skin would be a
mistake.
www.Rosspilot.com

[Richard Russell]

On 31 Aug 2004 18:15:02 GMT, (Rosspilot)
wrote:

>>I'd really like to know if your paranoid, and why.
>
>
>Because everyone is out to get me.
>
><G>
>
>
>www.Rosspilot.com
>
If everyone is really out to get you then it is not paranoia.
Rich Russell

[CB]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>
>> > OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and
> videotapes
>> > disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look like
>> > something is being covered up.
>>
>> Possibly sensitive information about building security or its contents --
> it
>> is the Pentagon, after all.
>
> Yeah, it could have been procedural. IE, whatever was filmed may or may
> not
> contain sensitive information, but as a matter of policy it's not made
> available to the public. That eliminates the risk that something
> sensitive,
> however irrelevant to the incident, doesn't get leaked by accident.

Just like Russia

[DanH]

Rosspilot wrote:
>
> >I'd really like to know if your paranoid, and why.
>
> Because everyone is out to get me.
>
> <G>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com

All right, who spilled the beans and told Ross we were all out to get
him?

[C J Campbell]

"CB" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >
> >> > OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and
> > videotapes
> >> > disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look
like
> >> > something is being covered up.
> >>
> >> Possibly sensitive information about building security or its
contents --
> > it
> >> is the Pentagon, after all.
> >
> > Yeah, it could have been procedural. IE, whatever was filmed may or may
> > not
> > contain sensitive information, but as a matter of policy it's not made
> > available to the public. That eliminates the risk that something
> > sensitive,
> > however irrelevant to the incident, doesn't get leaked by accident.
>
> Just like Russia

Are you suggesting that the United States should not have military secrets?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"DanH" > wrote in message
...
> Rosspilot wrote:
>>
>> >I'd really like to know if your paranoid, and why.
>>
>> Because everyone is out to get me.
>>
>> <G>
>>
>> www.Rosspilot.com
>
> All right, who spilled the beans and told Ross we were all out to get
> him?

It is SO hard to keep a secret on this newsgroup!

[Dave S]

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and videotapes
>>disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look like
>>something is being covered up.
>
>
> Possibly sensitive information about building security or its contents -- it
> is the Pentagon, after all.
>
>

What on earth is sensitive and procedural about the EXTERIOR, which can
be seen in public.. and from the same public vantage points as the
cameras in question?

Dave

[C J Campbell]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > "Rosspilot" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>OK--I can accept all that. What I don't like are the films and
videotapes
> >>disappearing or being hidden from public. That only makes it look like
> >>something is being covered up.
> >
> >
> > Possibly sensitive information about building security or its
contents -- it
> > is the Pentagon, after all.
> >
> >
>
> What on earth is sensitive and procedural about the EXTERIOR, which can
> be seen in public.. and from the same public vantage points as the
> cameras in question?

You could see a great deal more than the exterior.

[onsitewelding]

I have seen this video before and I suppose that untill all the videos are
released and undeniable facts are shown then the conspearacy theory will
continue to thrive!

I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B that
used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we must
go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"

This is just my opinion however.

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> OK--get ready for this:
>
> I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.
>
> http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Gig Giacona]

"onsitewelding" > wrote in message
news:J0iZc.290239$J06.133597@pd7tw2no...
> I have seen this video before and I suppose that untill all the videos are
> released and undeniable facts are shown then the conspearacy theory will
> continue to thrive!


Oh yea, proof always ends conspiracy theories.



>
> I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B
that
> used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we
must
> go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
> It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
> terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
> friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"
>
> This is just my opinion however.


Come own... Either he's stupid or sneaky enough to personally plan a war.
Not both.

[Dave]

onsitewelding wrote:
>

> I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B that
> used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we must
> go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
> It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
> terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
> friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"
>
> This is just my opinion however.


What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
are gas prices outrageous??


~D

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
> are gas prices outrageous??
>

"Outrageous" is relative. US prices are still dirt cheap compared to what
Europeans pay.

[John T]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message

>
> I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.

Throw out your own opinion, instead.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:

> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
> > are gas prices outrageous??
> >
>
> "Outrageous" is relative. US prices are still dirt cheap compared to what
> Europeans pay.
>
>

That is because European governments impose outrageous taxes on fuel.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave wrote:
>
> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
> are gas prices outrageous??

If it *were* all about oil, we would have invaded Argentina.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Doug]

Im a pilot in training but I have a few explainations...

Haliburtons illegal contracts provided them the immedate ability to
start the clean up of the wreckage minutes after the crash. that is why
you see perfectly intact cables. (had to use something to lift all the
plane up with)

being that the Bush administration has such a horrible enviromental
record they asorbed the gas to hide the damage (from greenpeace) to the
ground water. Resold again at a profit of course...

tapes were confiscated because they also had images of black helicopters
coordinating haliburtons work.

and last but not least.... a inability to understand that there are evil
people in the world that want to kill us, too much pot and nothing to do
with your life causes you to make crap up and try to sell the thoughts
on the internet...all on a site that is the world of 12 year old Doom
players....


I (and my company) am the internet for all respects of the word.. And I
speak as an expert when I say you really cannot believe everything you
read in this WWW. <joking>try dropping acid and watch the video again,
you may see Dom Rumsfeld holding a laser pointer on the exact spot and
behind the techno music youll hear Dick Cheny saying buy haliburton
stock...</joking>

-Doug
'I am the far right'







> OK--get ready for this:
>
> I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.
>
> http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is because European governments impose outrageous taxes on fuel.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

[Jay Beckman]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> onsitewelding wrote:
>>
>
>> I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B
>> that
>> used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we
>> must
>> go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
>> It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
>> terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
>> friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"
>>
>> This is just my opinion however.
>
>
> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
> are gas prices outrageous??
>
>
> ~D

If it *were* all about the oil, why didn't we just take over and occupy
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait back in '91?

Jay

[Earl Grieda]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> onsitewelding wrote:
> >
>
> > I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a
> > sneaky S.O.B that used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into
> > Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we must go in and remove the axis
> > of evil" soo much Bunk! It should have read-"I George W Bush
> > so solomly swear to use the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an excuse
> > to invade Iraq so that my rich American friends and I can control
> > all the middle east oil reserves"
> >
> > This is just my opinion however.
>
>
> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil,
> why are gas prices outrageous??
>

If it was about oil, and I am not saying that it was, it would be about the
oil companies making bigger profits, not lowering your price at the pump.

Earl G

[Gerald Sylvester]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
>>are gas prices outrageous??
>>
>
>
> "Outrageous" is relative. US prices are still dirt cheap compared to what
> Europeans pay.

correct but as long as gas-guzzling Hummer and SUV driving Americans
can fill up their tanks, tank on their cell phones and eat their
Micky D's super-sized fries, they are more than happy in supporting the
very same countries we/Americans bitch about. The ads where Bush said
Kerry was for raising the taxes on gas were great. I personally think
they should add a 50 cent tax per gallon of gasoline. Then the moms
driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
and responsible sized vehicle.

Gerald

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
Gerald Sylvester > wrote:

> I personally think
> they should add a 50 cent tax per gallon of gasoline. Then the moms
> driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
> and responsible sized vehicle.

"reasonable and responsible" according to whose definition?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Effie Andree Wiltens]

> "Outrageous" is relative. US prices are still dirt cheap compared to what
> Europeans pay.

Hear hear.

At Rotterdam fuel costs $2.18 per LITER that's $8.5/USGal.

Have a look at: (NB. Prices are per LITER on this list)
http://www.alexfrance.eurobell.co.uk/eurofuel.htm

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
>
> Then the moms
> driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
> and responsible sized vehicle.

No, they won't. The prevailing attitude there was summed up by the lady interviewed
by National Geographic magazine a few months ago. She said she didn't mind the gas
mileage (or lack therof) her Hummer gets. She's comfortable knowing that "no matter
what I hit, I win."

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Rolf Blom]

On 2004-09-02 17:04, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Gerald Sylvester wrote:
>
>>Then the moms
>>driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
>>and responsible sized vehicle.
>
>
> No, they won't. The prevailing attitude there was summed up by the lady interviewed
> by National Geographic magazine a few months ago. She said she didn't mind the gas
> mileage (or lack therof) her Hummer gets. She's comfortable knowing that "no matter
> what I hit, I win."
>
> George Patterson
> If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
> he gives it to.

....until she runs into another Hummer owner of course.

Will she get an Abrahams tank next?

/Rolf

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
.net...
>>
>
> If it was about oil, and I am not saying that it was, it would be about
> the
> oil companies making bigger profits, not lowering your price at the pump.
>

Good observation. This would infer the workings are mainly
behind-the-scenes and much safer politically.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>> Then the moms
>> driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
>> and responsible sized vehicle.
>
> No, they won't. The prevailing attitude there was summed up by the lady
> interviewed
> by National Geographic magazine a few months ago. She said she didn't mind
> the gas
> mileage (or lack therof) her Hummer gets. She's comfortable knowing that
> "no matter
> what I hit, I win."
>

Reminds me of the old joke about the Navy destroyer arguing with another
radio operator about changing course to avoid collision (pulling rank, etc.)
then having the other station announce they were a lighthouse, go ahead and
do as you wish.

Rolling over, losing control, hitting a stationary object are just as much
hazards, maybe even more so in a large, unwieldy vehicle. Plus, there is
little question that the danger to others is increased. What could be a
relatively minor collision can turn into serious injury or death, and the
decreased visibility (especially in parking lots in supermarkets and around
schools) increases risk to children.

A month ago I had a lady in a Ford Expedition rear end me in my Honda
Accord. On a straight section of country highway. She said she was
distracted and didn't see me and came close to totalling my car ($4500
damage). The impact was strong, moving everything from the front of the car
to the back seat and moving my seat to the rearmost position. Very
fortunately the headrest was in the proper position and I was not injured.
Had there been no headrest I would not be posting this today, the doctor I
saw said I would likely have been killed or paralyzed. There was almost no
damage to the SUV. Had it been a vehicle closer to the Accord's size the
impact would have been more evenly distributed, but very likely would not
have even occurred as the driver's view of me would have been much clearer.

I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am also
concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
(somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

[CB]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> onsitewelding wrote:
>>
>
>> I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B
>> that
>> used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we
>> must
>> go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
>> It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
>> terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
>> friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"
>>
>> This is just my opinion however.
>
>
> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
> are gas prices outrageous??

Because Bush and his cronies ****ed it up and misjudged the post invasion
chaos.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
> effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am also
> concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
> will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
> own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
> (somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
> "responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

I agree, but I don't have a solution to the problem. I've heard people mention that
many of these vehicles are classed as "trucks" and are thus exempt from certain
environmental restrictions. If so, I think it reasonable to remove the exemption, at
least for vehicles that are clearly equiped to carry passengers rather than cargo,
but that would probably only establish a "cottage industry" of adding seats to cargo
vehicles.

Back in the '70s, the gas crunches produced demand for efficient cars, but the
American concentration on safety these days seems to have prempted everything else.
As long as people think their kids will be safer in an Explorer than a Focus, they'll
buy the extra gas.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Corky Scott]

On 31 Aug 2004 11:53:35 GMT, (Rosspilot)
wrote:

>I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.

The purest hokum. The maker of the film from "paranoids are us" is
skipping over the passenger manifest which logged all the people who
boarded the airliner and who died upon impact of that airliner with
the Pentagon. He, and I'm assuming it's a he, is also skipping over
the fact that four airliners were lost that day, not three airliners
and a commuter airplane, or three airliners and a missile. They are
all accounted for from each crash, there's no mistake.

Airliner crash fires are hot, especially airliners that are fat with
fuel. Hot fires burn things like aluminum, steel and people to dust.

Really Rosspilot, this is extreme troll material.

Corky Scott

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
> effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am
> also
> concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
> will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
> own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
> (somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
> "responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Newps]

Rolf Blom wrote:

>
>
> ...until she runs into another Hummer owner of course.
>
> Will she get an Abrahams tank next?

As soon as they make one I can put a license on.

[Newps]

Some
>>will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
>>own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
>>(somewhat).

No, actually totally.


However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
>>"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

I am responsible to my family, and you to yours.


>
> Back in the '70s, the gas crunches produced demand for efficient cars, but the
> American concentration on safety these days seems to have prempted everything else.
> As long as people think their kids will be safer in an Explorer than a Focus, they'll
> buy the extra gas.

They are safer in an Explorer than a Focus. Many, many times safer.
While only 1.5 more people die per 100,000 passengers in SUV's those
poor saps in the Focus get slaughtered when they crash into something
other than another Focus.

Federal statistics on 2003 death rates for cars, SUVs, other vehicles:

Number of people killed per 100,000 passengers:

- Cars: 14.9

- SUVs: 16.4

- Pickup trucks: 15.2

- Vans: 11.2


Number of people killed in crashes between cars and light truck vehicles
(including vans, pickups, SUVs):

- Cars: 4,481

- Light truck vehicles: 1,098

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.
>

By that logic, if I drive an Abhrams tank you are driving an unsafe vehicle.

Isn't this just a positive feedback loop which if allowed to run it's course
will result in our economic self-destruction? What is to limit it?

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> They are safer in an Explorer than a Focus. Many, many times safer. While
> only 1.5 more people die per 100,000 passengers in SUV's those poor saps
> in the Focus get slaughtered when they crash into something other than
> another Focus.

Aren't you twisting the statistics around a bit? You cannot be many times
safer if the death rate is higher. I could just as well say SUVs are MANY
times more dangerous to their occupants during rollovers, and I could even
point to higher overall fatality rates.

There was a NY Times article a couple months ago on how insurance rates will
be rising for *everyone* due to the reversal of the downward trend in
accident rates due to SUVs. So you are also demanding that I pay for your
higher risk, in addition to assuming a higher risk to my family and self
(not to mention the premium on fuel costs associated with higher consumption
overall).

I guess you are advocating the "Every man for himself, to hell with my
neighbors" attitude. That's cool. I don't happen to agree, though.

[Newps]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.
>>
>
>
> By that logic, if I drive an Abhrams tank you are driving an unsafe vehicle.
>
> Isn't this just a positive feedback loop which if allowed to run it's course
> will result in our economic self-destruction? What is to limit it?

The limit is what do you want to drive?

[Danny Deger]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> OK--get ready for this:
>
> I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.
>
> http://www.overclockedgaming.com/pentagoncrash.html
>
>
> www.Rosspilot.com
>
>

I don't see a thing, not one thing that would indicate anything other than a
large aircraft full of fuel impacting the building a high velocity.
1. Lots of fire, lots of fuel
2. Lots of fire, no airplane parts left. Fire consumes aluminum
3. High velocity, deep penetration, no big pieces left. The video of
accidents with big pieces left were at lower velocities an shallow impact
angles. High velocity at a high angle to very strong walls would turn the
airplane into little pieces of scrap metal that the fire would consume.
4. Statement that pilots were incompetent was certainly based on ability to
takeoff, land, navigate, and handle air traffic control procedures (i.e. be
a real pilot). I could train my 9 year old daughter to crash a plane into a
building.
5. Intact windows indicate no high explosives used. Missile and/or small
aircraft would have needed high explosives to cause that much damage.
6. Eye witnesses saying they heard a missile - how much experience did they
have distinguishing between the sound of a missile and the sound of an
airplane traveling at high speed. Ditto for the smell of explosives.
7. Authorities collecting video of the most horrific "criminal" event of all
times? OF COURSE THE AUTHORITIES WILL COLLECT THE VIDEOS!!!! What do you
think they would do? Drop in and say "Here's my business card. You go
ahead and keep the videos. After you get tired of viewing them drop me a
line and if I am not too busy I will make an effort to come out and get
them".

But all in all, not a bad comedy.

Danny Deger

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> > If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.
>
> By that logic, if I drive an Abhrams tank you are driving an unsafe
> vehicle.
>
> Isn't this just a positive feedback loop which if allowed to run it's
> course
> will result in our economic self-destruction? What is to limit it?


look at it this way, you complain that someone driving a big SUV
is endangering you in your little Honda Accord (the SUV might
be what, 4 to 5 times your vehicle weight). Well, that Honda
is at least 5 times the weight of my Honda. Why are you driving
that a vehicle that endangers me?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> look at it this way, you complain that someone driving a big SUV
> is endangering you in your little Honda Accord (the SUV might
> be what, 4 to 5 times your vehicle weight). Well, that Honda
> is at least 5 times the weight of my Honda. Why are you driving
> that a vehicle that endangers me?
>

Heh. Because I got rid of my 350 when I had a family, which was
untransportable on the two wheeler.

But seriously, I would love to use something much smaller for local
transportation. The bike works for just myself, and if there were small
rechargeable electric golf-cart like vehicles that could handle these hills
we would get one for local errands. Boy would parking be easy!!

I think the difference is that I would like to get the smallest vehicle that
will get me and family around and others look to get the biggest one that
can do the job. Around here the big thing is to get the most expensive,
biggest, best equipped vehicle possible and park it in front of your 6000
square foot McMansion on one tenth of an acre. Then the illegal nanny from
El Salvadore who doesn't have a license drives the kids to school while both
parents commute to the city for most of the day and evening.

[David Brooks]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
> effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am also
> concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
> will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
> own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
> (somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
> "responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

The Libertarian answer would be that you are free to own an even bigger
vehicle, so get one and make yourself safer, crybaby.

-- David Brooks

[Peter Gottlieb]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Libertarian answer would be that you are free to own an even bigger
> vehicle, so get one and make yourself safer, crybaby.


Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to advance your (or any) argument. Is that
the best you can do?

Go ahead, argue that one group should have to pay for others' "freedoms."
We are all not separate islands here, we have to live together, and where
one person's freedoms impact another person's freedoms is where things get
grey.

[David Brooks]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Libertarian answer would be that you are free to own an even bigger
> > vehicle, so get one and make yourself safer, crybaby.
>
>
> Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to advance your (or any) argument. Is that
> the best you can do?
>
> Go ahead, argue that one group should have to pay for others' "freedoms."
> We are all not separate islands here, we have to live together, and where
> one person's freedoms impact another person's freedoms is where things get
> grey.

Perhaps I should have made my intention clearer by putting quote marks
before "you" and after the period.

-- David Brooks

[Peter Gottlieb]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The Libertarian answer would be that you are free to own an even bigger
>> > vehicle, so get one and make yourself safer, crybaby.
>>
>>
>> Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to advance your (or any) argument. Is that
>> the best you can do?
>>
>> Go ahead, argue that one group should have to pay for others' "freedoms."
>> We are all not separate islands here, we have to live together, and where
>> one person's freedoms impact another person's freedoms is where things
>> get
>> grey.
>
> Perhaps I should have made my intention clearer by putting quote marks
> before "you" and after the period.
>
> -- David Brooks
>

Ok, I'm cool with that. But I would still prefer if you can add something.

[Robert M. Gary]

Dave > wrote in message >...
> onsitewelding wrote:
> >
>
> > I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B that
> > used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we must
> > go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
> > It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
> > terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
> > friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"
> >
> > This is just my opinion however.
>
>
> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
> are gas prices outrageous??

The liberals have quietly backed away from that. If the war was about
oil, why didn't we take any oil? The liberals have a hard time saying
they were wrong.

-Robert

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

> > look at it this way, you complain that someone driving a big SUV
> > is endangering you in your little Honda Accord (the SUV might
> > be what, 4 to 5 times your vehicle weight). Well, that Honda
> > is at least 5 times the weight of my Honda. Why are you driving
> > that a vehicle that endangers me?
>
> Heh. Because I got rid of my 350 when I had a family, which was
> untransportable on the two wheeler.

another downside of motorcycles is that the gate sensors at
KBED can't detect them - at least not the 250cc one I have. ARGH!

>
> But seriously, I would love to use something much smaller for local
> transportation. The bike works for just myself, and if there were small
> rechargeable electric golf-cart like vehicles that could handle these
> hills
> we would get one for local errands. Boy would parking be easy!!
>
> I think the difference is that I would like to get the smallest vehicle
> that
> will get me and family around and others look to get the biggest one that
> can do the job.

a real challenge is to distinquish between the "I'll buy the biggest
thing I can because I can" people and the folks who are need the capacity
as well as the safety.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> a real challenge is to distinquish between the "I'll buy the biggest
> thing I can because I can" people and the folks who are need the capacity
> as well as the safety.


You can't. It's a tough problem, which is why there is talk along the lines
of:
Classifying SUVs and other trucks designed to carry passengers as
passenger vehicles.
Legislating improved fuel economy.
Increasing usage taxes to more closely match cost of highways and
environmental effects.
Improving safety of smaller vehicles through improved engineering of
large and small vehicles.
Improving safety of SUVs through active suspension systems (eg,
Bose).
Restructuring insurance to account for changed risk profiles.
Black boxes in all new vehicles.
Alternate fuel (eg, hydrogen, electric) motive systems and
infrastructure.
Improvement of some, and abandonment of other, mass transit systems.

I'm sure there's more, that's just a quick list. Personally I favor a
market based system since it requires the least government intervention to
run. Under such a system the attempt is made to make the purchase and usage
of any vehicle very accurately match the full costs to society of such
purchase and use. The base cost may have to include the legally mandated
minimum insurance requirement, which should be reduced to decrease the
insulation provided to irresponsible drivers. What is assumed to be a
"right" to drive should probably move more toward more of a priviledge, to
be earned, and respected.

[CB]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
> Dave > wrote in message
> >...
>> onsitewelding wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B
>> > that
>> > used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we
>> > must
>> > go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
>> > It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
>> > terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
>> > friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"
>> >
>> > This is just my opinion however.
>>
>>
>> What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
>> are gas prices outrageous??
>
> The liberals have quietly backed away from that. If the war was about
> oil, why didn't we take any oil? The liberals have a hard time saying
> they were wrong.
Cheney, the president, Bush the gofer just underestimated the post invasion
chaos. Plans foiled - simple as that.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb" > wrote:

[snip]
> Under such a system the attempt is made to make the purchase and
> usage
> of any vehicle very accurately match the full costs to society of such
> purchase and use.

and that isn't easy. For example, a lot of people talk about
zero emissions vehicles which leads to the soundbite of
those cars really being pollute-elsewhere vehicles. And
which costs society more, the car powered by oil, the car
powered by electricity from nukes, or the car powered by
electricity from oil/gas/coal? Don't forget the decommissioning
of the nuke and the waste, but don't forget the cost of
mining and transporting the oil/coal/gas. etc etc etc.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[mike regish]

Bush is stupid. Cheney's sneaky.

What a team!

mike regish

>
> Come own... Either he's stupid or sneaky enough to personally plan a war.
> Not both.
>
>