LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot - serious, not follies
- Thread starter erikbeckjord
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot
Ripley Twenty-Nine
Muse
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 849
Re: Summary to date
Please, very simply, tell us, why should we believe this? "Because I said so" does not qualify as a reason.
You seem amazed that noone believes that Bigfoot is a shapeshifting alien. You say you have no evidence to prove this besides blurry photos of treestumps and clouds.erikbeckjord said:
Please, very simply, tell us, why should we believe this? "Because I said so" does not qualify as a reason.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post
1) It is impossible to open an emergency window or exit "a crack". Once the locking safeguards are removed, they are designed to open fully and immediately. Given the way these are constructed, it may not even be possible to open them while in flight - internal cabin pressure might make pulling the window or door inward impossible. Even if it were possible - depending on the height of the plane - the explosive decompression that follows may even result in loss of flight control. If the hijacker's intention is not to crash the plane, but to hold hostages and make demands, then these actions would put people on the ground in great danger unnecessarily.
2) The pilot (assuming he or she keeps control) will indeed have to dive the plane. Which is exactly what a hijacker would want if his intention was to crash the plane into a building anyway.
3) Unlike the Twin Trade Towers and other recent construction, a completely different support structure was used in the Empire State Building. The Trade Towers were designed to flex, and it was the external structure of the building that maintained it's integrity. The Empire State Building is designed to tolerate flexing, and the support structure is embedded inside the building, not on the outside. This results in a much more stable and resistant structure to outside impact.
In point of fact, on July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber hit the 78th floor of the Empire State Building at approximately 200 - 250 miles per hour. The plane penetrated the building, and the damage - while signficant - did not render the structure unstable or in danger of collapse.
Here is a story about the crash; and here is a rather famous picture of the result.
Bear in mind that while modern jets are larger than B-25's and fly faster (and weigh more), they are composed of materials that are much more fragile than those used in the B-25. The B-25 bomber was built of more durable material (little or no plastic, fiberglass and no composite materials!) - the superstructure and wings were designed to take a great deal of punishment in a combat zone and remain intact.
At first, I considered Mr. Beckjord as either an amusing troll or a mildly deluded individual. Based on the kinds of dangerous advice he's apparently giving on things that he's obviously unqualified to deal with, I am no longer amused and consider him dangerously deluded.
Psiload said:
1) It is impossible to open an emergency window or exit "a crack". Once the locking safeguards are removed, they are designed to open fully and immediately. Given the way these are constructed, it may not even be possible to open them while in flight - internal cabin pressure might make pulling the window or door inward impossible. Even if it were possible - depending on the height of the plane - the explosive decompression that follows may even result in loss of flight control. If the hijacker's intention is not to crash the plane, but to hold hostages and make demands, then these actions would put people on the ground in great danger unnecessarily.
2) The pilot (assuming he or she keeps control) will indeed have to dive the plane. Which is exactly what a hijacker would want if his intention was to crash the plane into a building anyway.
3) Unlike the Twin Trade Towers and other recent construction, a completely different support structure was used in the Empire State Building. The Trade Towers were designed to flex, and it was the external structure of the building that maintained it's integrity. The Empire State Building is designed to tolerate flexing, and the support structure is embedded inside the building, not on the outside. This results in a much more stable and resistant structure to outside impact.
In point of fact, on July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber hit the 78th floor of the Empire State Building at approximately 200 - 250 miles per hour. The plane penetrated the building, and the damage - while signficant - did not render the structure unstable or in danger of collapse.
Here is a story about the crash; and here is a rather famous picture of the result.
Bear in mind that while modern jets are larger than B-25's and fly faster (and weigh more), they are composed of materials that are much more fragile than those used in the B-25. The B-25 bomber was built of more durable material (little or no plastic, fiberglass and no composite materials!) - the superstructure and wings were designed to take a great deal of punishment in a combat zone and remain intact.
At first, I considered Mr. Beckjord as either an amusing troll or a mildly deluded individual. Based on the kinds of dangerous advice he's apparently giving on things that he's obviously unqualified to deal with, I am no longer amused and consider him dangerously deluded.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
jmercer, keep in mind you're trying to debunk the words of a man who, by all appearances, doesn't seem to be on very good speaking terms with reality.
erikbeckjord
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 274
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post
Making the plane dive does not mean making it crash. BONK! In an extreme case, hmmm.... partially opening a removeable window, excape window, not a door, may help to decompress.. it is worth a try. If I recall, you loosen teh latch and pull it in, then, officially, you are supposed to turn it sideways and toss it out. By pulling a few inches in, you might decompress the plane and make thand make the hijackers go unconsious. The pilots have masks and can breathe., If the crash were to the Empire State Building, the losses may be 100s and not 1000s, BUT SO WHAT? You ***** would sit in your seats and do nothing and die. At least do what the flt 93 people did and die honorably. You guys are negative,negative, in a word, skeptix. Boring ones at that.
NATTERING NANNYGOATS OF NEGATIVITY
i AM OFFERING ATTEMPTS AT SOLUTIONS... YOU JUST SIT THERE AND BLEAT "NAY,NAY,NAY" NAAAAAAAAYYYY -- IT TAKES NO TALENT TO BE A CRITIC.
My point is to find some way, making a hole with an emergency ax, or knife or breaker bar or something, to cause decompression.jmercer said:
Making the plane dive does not mean making it crash. BONK! In an extreme case, hmmm.... partially opening a removeable window, excape window, not a door, may help to decompress.. it is worth a try. If I recall, you loosen teh latch and pull it in, then, officially, you are supposed to turn it sideways and toss it out. By pulling a few inches in, you might decompress the plane and make thand make the hijackers go unconsious. The pilots have masks and can breathe., If the crash were to the Empire State Building, the losses may be 100s and not 1000s, BUT SO WHAT? You ***** would sit in your seats and do nothing and die. At least do what the flt 93 people did and die honorably. You guys are negative,negative, in a word, skeptix. Boring ones at that.
NATTERING NANNYGOATS OF NEGATIVITY
i AM OFFERING ATTEMPTS AT SOLUTIONS... YOU JUST SIT THERE AND BLEAT "NAY,NAY,NAY" NAAAAAAAAYYYY -- IT TAKES NO TALENT TO BE A CRITIC.
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post
The reason for this is very simple. People like yourself.
Let's see... they won't let me on a plane these days with tweezers or a set of nail clippers, yet I'm supposed to grab my trusty ax and my pry bar to decompress the plane? Or I can use a knife? You mean like the butter knife they give me with my in-flight meal? Yeah... I'll breach the pressure hull of a 727 with a butter knife, that should do the trick in no time.
I guess I'll just have to take you on flights with me from now on... put that thick skull of yours to good use.
Emergency exits on commercial airplanes are specifically designed to not function while a plane is at altitude.erikbeckjord said:
The reason for this is very simple. People like yourself.
Let's see... they won't let me on a plane these days with tweezers or a set of nail clippers, yet I'm supposed to grab my trusty ax and my pry bar to decompress the plane? Or I can use a knife? You mean like the butter knife they give me with my in-flight meal? Yeah... I'll breach the pressure hull of a 727 with a butter knife, that should do the trick in no time.
I guess I'll just have to take you on flights with me from now on... put that thick skull of yours to good use.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
The oxygen masks will deploy in the event of a decompression. Anyone who is awake and alert will not go unconscious. There will be no need to "crash dive" the plane dangerously unless there is a malfunction with the oxygen. A smooth descent will be made to a safe altitude.
Mythbusters has shown pretty conclusively that explosive decompression is largely a myth, anyway. They tried shooting a hole in a window, and blowing out a whole window.
Decompression resulted, but nothing spectacular and nothing big would have been sucked out. Both holes in the fuselage were too small and decompression was too slow to suck anything but paper out.
To get any real effect on a passenger, a large chunk of the fuselage had to be blown out, making a really big hole, like that flight where a big chunk of roof came off of the plane.
If you crack open the door, you won't get any explosive decompression, period. You'll just hear a lot of noise until the pressure equalizes.
Mythbusters has shown pretty conclusively that explosive decompression is largely a myth, anyway. They tried shooting a hole in a window, and blowing out a whole window.
Decompression resulted, but nothing spectacular and nothing big would have been sucked out. Both holes in the fuselage were too small and decompression was too slow to suck anything but paper out.
To get any real effect on a passenger, a large chunk of the fuselage had to be blown out, making a really big hole, like that flight where a big chunk of roof came off of the plane.
If you crack open the door, you won't get any explosive decompression, period. You'll just hear a lot of noise until the pressure equalizes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post
Tell you what. You try to get an ax, knife or breaker bar onto a commercial airliner and tell me what happens.
I withdraw any concerns about explosive decompression based on LTC86's post - thanks LT.
Regarding what I would do, Mr. Beckjord - you have not the slightest idea of what I would do (or am capable of doing) in such a situation. Sitting in my seat like a sheep isn't among my choices, however.
Got a thing for hairy animals, do you? My goodness... Bigfoot had better sleep with one eye open!
You should be a fine critic, then.
erikbeckjord said:
Tell you what. You try to get an ax, knife or breaker bar onto a commercial airliner and tell me what happens.
I withdraw any concerns about explosive decompression based on LTC86's post - thanks LT.
Regarding what I would do, Mr. Beckjord - you have not the slightest idea of what I would do (or am capable of doing) in such a situation. Sitting in my seat like a sheep isn't among my choices, however.
erikbeckjord said:
Got a thing for hairy animals, do you? My goodness... Bigfoot had better sleep with one eye open!
erikbeckjord said:
You should be a fine critic, then.
LTC8K6 said:
Excellent post. The whole idea of opening up one of these in-flight seemed bizarre to me, so I was just going based on logic and memory of how I'd seen these things put together. Nice catch on the Mythbusters show - didn't know they'd done that...
Beady
Philosopher
LTC8K6 said:
On Soyuz 12(?) the decompress valve was accidentally opened during reentry. Decompression wasn't exactly instantaneous, but it still only took about 30 seconds. When the ground crew found the capsule there was virtually no physical indication of what happened; they even thought, at first, that the crew were asleep.
That occurred at roughly 100 miles altitude. I can't imagine that decompression at 1/10th that altitude would be worse.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post
No. You may be thinking of Ray Wallace. He didn't fake anything important.
http://www.bigfootresearch.org/Bigfoot_ray wallace.htm
Mr. Skinny said:
No. You may be thinking of Ray Wallace. He didn't fake anything important.
http://www.bigfootresearch.org/Bigfoot_ray wallace.htm
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
erikbeckjord said:
I'm pompous? Oh, my sides.
I have no idea who would send you favorable PM's, but it certainly wasn't me. Do I have your permission to post some of your comments to me? Other posters might be interested to see what kind of PM's you send.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post
B-25: A few hundred gallons of gasoline.
767: Thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
It was the burning jet fuel that weakened the towers and caused the collapse. I doubt the Empire State Building would have fared much better.
A B-25 wouldn't have done much damage to the WTC either. The big difference between the B-25 and a jetliner (besides size and speed) is the amount and type of fuel used.jmercer said:
B-25: A few hundred gallons of gasoline.
767: Thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
It was the burning jet fuel that weakened the towers and caused the collapse. I doubt the Empire State Building would have fared much better.
Morris Cod
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 133
Errr...sorry,I seem to have stumbled upon the Muppet Show forum.
My mistake.
By the way which muppet was Eric? Was he the drummer? Or one of the old heckling guys from the balcony?
My mistake.
By the way which muppet was Eric? Was he the drummer? Or one of the old heckling guys from the balcony?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
erikbeckjord said:reply: got ten pms of support, and one critical. (LAL)
Would you like me to post them? I replied to most of your ranting, demanding, insulting, veiled obscenity- filled posts. You sent me 12 PM's, I replied to 10.
Do you tell the truth about anything?
RayG
Master Poster
LAL said:
Same RayG? Whew. I think I'll take a break.
Yup, dat be me. I couldn't resist the urge to roast Cedrip's nuts over an open fire.
I'm still waiting for his detailed explanation of shape-shifting. It should at least prove entertaining, cause I don't expect anything intelligent.
Take care LAL yer doing fine.
RayG