GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2013, 16:41   #251
Glocksanity
Senior Member
 
Glocksanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles, Man, Los Angeles
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reheater View Post
Yes and several other experts have refuted their claims. You look hard enough and you'll find educated people that think the Earth is flat.

You know how many times "trained military" pilots flying cargo planes have reported surface to air missiles being shot at them in Afghanistan? Happens every month. You know how many confirmed surface to air missile launches have actually occurred in Afghanistan after the evaluation team has investigated... 3. 11 years of war, 3 confirmed missiles hundreds of reports.

All these "eye witness testimony" and other garbage is just fuel for the conspiracy. If you can get just one ******* with a title of some kind of expected credibility that's good enough to a tin foil whack job to say "see I told you!" Never mind the hundreds of the same titled and trained people saying that he's wrong. I read that retarded statement from the British airways pilot and laugh. I'm curious how many times that guy has actually seen ground fire. I can't even count the number of times the moon reflected on a body of water on the ground out the corner of my eye has made me think "oh **** tracers!" Only to stop and realize its an optical illusion, and I've been shot at.

I'm telling you flat out, this missile theory is a joke. The only kind of missiles that could have hit it and done that kind of damage weren't in the vicinity. The only US Navy combat vessels in the vicinity were subs, and they don't pack that kind of heat. No destroyer or cruiser was in a position to shoot down that flight so the conspiracy that it was kept quiet is crap. It never could have happened to keep quiet. And I'm basing that on the fact that its my job to know those weapons and their capabilities, not because I saw lights and sounds in the sky and made a damn guess.
And you can probably look at videos of three controlled demolitions of buildings in NYC and say they were not controlled demolitions because the official report says they were not.
__________________
G21~G26~G30~G34

Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis!
Glocksanity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 16:49   #252
raven11
Senior Member
 
raven11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glocksanity View Post
And you can probably look at videos of three controlled demolitions of buildings in NYC and say they were not controlled demolitions because the official report says they were not.
Let me guess , you belive the moon landings were a hoax?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by oISHUTupNrocKIo View Post
He's actually wrong, after 8-9 shots with a 9mm bullet, you actually get a text on your phone saying "You are being shot at by a 9mm, don't worry, just ignore him and walk away."
raven11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 17:23   #253
Ragnar
Senior Member
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 11,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glocksanity View Post
And you can probably look at videos of three controlled demolitions of buildings in NYC and say they were not controlled demolitions because the official report says they were not.
Show me fragments of detonators and det cord. And the teams that would have spent several weeks tearing out the internals to wire thousands of charges and lay miles of wire. And then show me how all of that stood up to a plane hitting the side of the building without breaking wires or setting off any explosives early.

Last edited by Ragnar; 06-20-2013 at 17:23..
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 17:31   #254
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glocksanity View Post
And you can probably look at videos of three controlled demolitions of buildings in NYC and say they were not controlled demolitions because the official report says they were not.
The three buildings you speak of were absolutely, positively not controlled demolitions. This is actually beyond dispute, unless you count the disputes of wacky know-nothing publicity seekers with their own twisted agendas.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 17:51   #255
VA27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reheater View Post
You ever been near a missile that big when it's launched... Everybody on the boat is gonna know what happened. Even in engineering spaces your going to hear it. Not to mention the klaxons and announcements that go off prior too it that are specific sounds for specific events to warn people to clear certain areas. Or the whole crew that was on watch suddenly seeing a big white thundering monster roar out of the deck.

Either way it doesn't matter, there wasn't a destroyer or cruiser in the area.
/|\ This. Intentionally firing a missle is 'kind of a big deal', so everyone on board is in on it, either doing their job or watching. It's also not a stealthy process, so letting one go unintentionally and expecting no one to notice is beyond the realm of the possible. I mean it's not like letting a fart and blaming it on the dog.
__________________
The United States already has a national gun policy. It's called the Second Amendment.

The NRA is my union.
VA27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 17:52   #256
RonS
Senior Member
 
RonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Oh, USA
Posts: 10,172
Sure wish Google glass had been widely available back then. Can you imagine these discussions when a couple of hundred million people are walking around with cameras on their heads, wired to the internet?
__________________
Decent law abiding people must fear criminals and the law while criminals have nothing to fear.
RonS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 19:14   #257
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 20,024
Once again GT provides some great, if disturbing entertainment.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 19:20   #258
happy seal
Senior Member
 
happy seal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,079
She saw a missile! I don't care what anybody thinks.

Big brother is watching this thread right now!
__________________
Be carefull, think first!
Support NRA.

"Off to the Salt Mine, My Friend"

Last edited by happy seal; 06-20-2013 at 19:21..
happy seal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 19:23   #259
happy seal
Senior Member
 
happy seal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
The three buildings you speak of were absolutely, positively not controlled demolitions. This is actually beyond dispute, unless you count the disputes of wacky know-nothing publicity seekers with their own twisted agendas.
Ash Jessie Ventura about this, he will tell you!
__________________
Be carefull, think first!
Support NRA.

"Off to the Salt Mine, My Friend"
happy seal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 19:30   #260
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 43,571
Blog Entries: 1


MANPAD from a weather balloon...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 21:09   #261
HKLovingIT
Resident Evil
 
HKLovingIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Out On The Tiles
Posts: 4,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
MANPAD from a weather balloon...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Or sharks with laser beams.
__________________
Jesus didn't have a stunt double, and neither do you...

кто пукнул здесь?
Nescio, sed foetet.
HKLovingIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 23:42   #262
datatech2550
Senior Member
 
datatech2550's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DFW
Posts: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA27 View Post
/|\ This. Intentionally firing a missle is 'kind of a big deal', so everyone on board is in on it, either doing their job or watching. It's also not a stealthy process, so letting one go unintentionally and expecting no one to notice is beyond the realm of the possible. I mean it's not like letting a fart and blaming it on the dog.
I served on aircraft carriers and can tell you that the CIWS makes a distinctive sound that carries thru the entire ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND TON, QUARTER MILE LONG ship.

Even with 30 ton aircraft banging into the roof, the noise of a sea sparrow launch would be heard by HUNDREDS of crew and it is certainly an unmistakable sound.

I can only imagine what it would be like on a destroyer or cruiser, but anyone that thinks a launch wouldn't be noticed is sadly mistaken.
__________________
Experience is what you always have about 15 minuets after you needed it.
datatech2550 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 00:39   #263
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anon1 View Post
No, but my reply was to the comment that everyone on board would have "witnessed" a missile launch. "Hearing" some noise is not necessarily witnessing it.
If I hear somebody screaming as they are being murdered I am a "witness" maybe and "earwitness" but none the less.

How any people that have HEARD a gunshot are witnesses in court?

A witness can testify to a sound that they are familiar with and when it occurred.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:11   #264
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,154
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glocksanity View Post
And you can probably look at videos of three controlled demolitions of buildings in NYC and say they were not controlled demolitions because the official report says they were not.


You and PW were cut from the same bolt of looney cloth.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:16   #265
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,154
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anon1 View Post
And your reading comprehension isn't worth a f.

Again, my reply was to the following comment. In that comment is made a very definite, 100%, uncertainty that "would have to have been witnessed by at least 350 ...".

Tell me, is that an accurate proclamation? Didn't think so, it therefore helps me to more accurately judge the merits of any and all further information from that source. Full quote below.


Yes, that is an accurate proclamation, and your not understanding that, is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.


You can not fire a missile like the SM-2 or Sea Sparrow off a ship without everyone knowing. Furthermore, for safety precautions, you have a set protocol to follow. And that requires you to warn the crew you're about to fire a missile, so they clear the blast area.


So yes, EVERYONE on a ship, would have known they fired a missile.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:19   #266
sns3guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
Interesting to have a 747 pilot with a different take.
If you have an honest conversation with nearly any 747 crew member, you'll get the same "take." As I said, I don't know a single crew member who believes it was a CWT failure. It wasn't.

Quote:
I also find it interesting that a group of people who have no trouble talking about murpheys law when it comes to their sidearm and mechanical failure can't accept the possibility of mechanical failure when it comes to an aircraft.
You've got that very wrong. Crews spend their entire professional lives training for mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, hydraulic, and other failures on board. It's just this particular failure that's alleged to have happened, didn't happen.

Quote:
Rims?

When the 747 takes off, it retracts the landing gear.
Does this put the rims in proximity to the tank that exploded?
"Rims" aren't what heat up on the landing gear. The brakes heat. The wheels heat and with them the brake assemblies, which are each monitored with independent temperature sensors. The 747 develops significant brake temperatures simply by taxiing, due to the weight on the wheels and tire sidewall flexing. Brake temperatures are closely monitored.

During a taxi and takeoff at JFK, insufficient brake temperatures are developed to be of any significance in this case. Even exceptionally hot brakes, however, don't pose a danger with the gear retracted, and in a worse case scenario, the crew may lower the gear for cooling in the slipstream. Brake temperature was not an issue in this case.

Quote:
Also, a pack outlet, is not hotter than your exhaust plume, there's not much chance of two big fat, close together turbines being bypassed to hit some avionics outlet vents by a first gen missile. They would fly right to the hottest spot. If they had been hit, it would have been more like the DHL flight.
Again, this belies your lack of understanding of the 747 and it's heat signature. I operated that aircraft for a number of years in and our of Afghanistan on a very regular basis. Understanding the aircraft, it's exposures, and threats has been a crucial part of operating that aircraft in that environment, and a missile threat is a very real part of operating there.

The DHL strike at Bagdhad was very different, with a different missile.

From beneath the 747, the primary heat signature is NOT the engines. It's the packs.

As for the explosion reportedly caused by the use of the boost override jettison pumps in the center wing tank, the theory is bunk as the switches were OFF and the tank wasn't in use. Those switches aren't mistaken for other fuel switches on the engineer panel; they have their own lights, and they operate at at twice the pressure and flow as other pumps in other tanks. Their use is NOT part of the takeoff or climb profile or fuel feed configuration when not burning off the CWT.

Without the pumps in use, a pump overheat and subsequent explosion wasn't possible, which is nice to know but not necessary because the tank didn't explode based on the pump overheating.

Note that the fuel feed configurations mandated by the current Airworthiness Directive for the 747 address the issue by keeping the fuel pump submerged when using fuel from the CWT. If not using fuel, the issue is irrelevant.

Quote:
So yes, EVERYONE on a ship, would have known they fired a missile.
It wasn't a military vessel, and everyone on the boat did know they fired a missile, because that was their reason for being there.

Last edited by sns3guppy; 06-21-2013 at 02:20..
sns3guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:38   #267
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,154
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Guppy, it wasn't a missile.

A. There existed at the time, no MANPAD that could make that hit. The shot exceeded the engagement envelope for every system we had. We didn't have a system that could make a head on engagement at 15K ft.

B. The location of the failure, precludes it from being a tail on fired weapon.

C. If it had been hit by a missile, there would be a whole bunch of damage, that couldn't be hidden.

You may have flown in and out of A-stan a bunch. But your knowledge of missiles is sorely lacking. And your argument keeps proving this over, and over and over.

As I said, I'm not claiming it was a spark in the CWT that brought it down. But anyone who's ever dealt with collecting parts of a airplane hit by a missile (and yes, I personally have) knows it wasn't a missile strike.


You can not hide the results, and evidence, of 1K + lb missile hitting an airplane. And the remains of 800, are lacking the obvious indicators of such a strike.


No matter how you spin it, the evidence clearly proves it was not a missile. What it was, will probably never be known, but it was not an anti aircraft missile.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 02:59   #268
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by sns3guppy View Post

As for the explosion reportedly caused by the use of the boost override jettison pumps in the center wing tank, the theory is bunk as the switches were OFF and the tank wasn't in use. Those switches aren't mistaken for other fuel switches on the engineer panel; they have their own lights, and they operate at at twice the pressure and flow as other pumps in other tanks. Their use is NOT part of the takeoff or climb profile or fuel feed configuration when not burning off the CWT.

Without the pumps in use, a pump overheat and subsequent explosion wasn't possible, which is nice to know but not necessary because the tank didn't explode based on the pump overheating.

Note that the fuel feed configurations mandated by the current Airworthiness Directive for the 747 address the issue by keeping the fuel pump submerged when using fuel from the CWT. If not using fuel, the issue is irrelevant.

The NTSB never claimed a pump overheat as the likely source if ignition. The source was not definitively identified but it was most likely a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system resulting in a spark inside the tank. Presence of air + fuel above its flash point + source of ignition.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:05   #269
sns3guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,759
Quote:
A. There existed at the time, no MANPAD that could make that hit. The shot exceeded the engagement envelope for every system we had. We didn't have a system that could make a head on engagement at 15K ft.
There existed several man portable weapons capable of taking down the aircraft, one of which did. A "head on" engagement wasn't necessary, given the lower aspect heat signature of the pack outlets.

Quote:
B. The location of the failure, precludes it from being a tail on fired weapon.
Irrelevant given the lower aspect pack outlet heat signature.

Quote:
You may have flown in and out of A-stan a bunch.
I have, as Captain In the 747.

Quote:
As I said, I'm not claiming it was a spark in the CWT that brought it down.
That leaves us with a really big problem, doesn't it? The official explanation is an explosion caused by the override jettison boost pumps in the center wing tank. Anyone who knows the aircraft knows the ridiculous nature of this claim, but it's the conclusion of the investigating authority (setting aside the China Lake report early in the process which stated that a missile was a likely culprit, and that the evidence clearly showed it as a probability).

If indeed it wasn't a CWT explosion due to internal motors and wiring (which it couldn't have been, for multiple reasons), then we have a big, big problem, with a false official report and a major cover up for...what?

While at the upper limits, even a SA7/B has the capability, and other platforms such as the Vanguard or Mistral were available and up to the task.

Given that the individuals who fired the weapon shot the wrong aircraft, and given the embarrassment to the US at failing to prevent it, it's little wonder that we're where we are; a laughable, implausible report detailing what allegedly happened, and a very unsatisfied world that rightfully doesn't believe it.

Quote:
The NTSB never claimed a pump overheat as the likely source if ignition. The source was not definitively identified but it was most likely a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system resulting in a spark inside the tank.
The solution to prevent a CWT explosion from occurring again came in the form of two things; replacement of the fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS), though no evidence in any way, shape, or form pointed to the FQIS, and no faulty systems were found, and an Airworthiness Directive regarding fuel management with respect to use of the fuel jettison override pumps in the CWT. To be clear, the very heart of the "solution" to the "problem" centered on the CWT jettison override boost pumps, and keeping them submerged during operation. Being submerged did two things; it allowed cooling of the pump, and added a load to the impeller to prevent overspeed. The crux of the "fix" was the CWT jettison override pumps.

The problem is that the pumps didn't do what was alleged to have been done, and the NTSB couldn't ever actually come up with a cause. Just ballpark allegations without the necessary specificity to say what really occurred.

Last edited by sns3guppy; 06-21-2013 at 03:15..
sns3guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:25   #270
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,154
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
I'm surprised, you will calmly state the NTSB and all their investigation and findings are wrong, but then make a claim that is clearly refuted by all the evidence we do have.....


Its confusing really.



But then again, you obviously don't know jack about missiles, which you've blatantly proven again and again, yet you claim a missile incapable of engaging the flight, and incapable of reaching to the flight level it was at, made a hit, with a warhead less than 10 lbs, was capable of blowing a 747 in two, without leaving any of the evidence normally associated with a missile strike. So I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.



I'm done arguing with you. You're wrong, but you're emotionally invested in your argument, so you will never accept the facts, just keep arguing a flawed argument based around a lack of knowledge. Have fun with that.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:55   #271
Ragnar
Senior Member
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 11,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by sns3guppy View Post
There existed several man portable weapons capable of taking down the aircraft, one of which did. A "head on" engagement wasn't necessary, given the lower aspect heat signature of the pack outlets.

Name them. I don't know of any that could do it either. And I've got 24 years of AF intel experience teaching weapons systems to both aircrew and intel personnel.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 03:58   #272
airmotive
Tin Kicker
 
airmotive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Debris Field
Posts: 6,995
Blog Entries: 1
I'll try to only chime in only once here....we'll see.
I haven't read the docket on this accident in years, so I'm going from memory.
Even the NTSB says the ignition source on TWA800 cannot be confirmed. However, FDR data confirm the energizing of the pump in question as well as voltage spikes consistent with a short to ground in the seconds immediately prior to the explosion.
There were several hundred eye witnesses to the explosion, less than 2% saw a streak going upward. Ask anyone who has interviewed multiple witnesses to the same event, that's better than average consistency.
Failure analysis of the airframe and injuries to the passengers are consistent with an explosion from inside the CWT. The reconstruction of the aircraft is still at the NTSB Training Center in Virginia. If you want to start your career as an ASI, you can even take classes and have a look at the wreckage yourself to see what the docket is talking about. There's so much more that goes into an investigation like this than a half dozen guys sitting around a table trying to come up with some sort of theory.

Just like the battery issue on the 787....sometimes there's simply no way to 100% confirm a scenario, but that doesn't mean something didn't go wrong.
If the first battery fire on the 787 had caused the plane to explode and disintegrate somewhere over the Pacific without warning, I'm sure this board would be full of 'hatters' accusing the French government of shooting down one of Boeing's Dreamliners in order to promote the A350. Instead, we have a battery that, even today, nobody is really sure what went wrong....and all the evidence is sitting right there in front of us, not on the bottom of the ocean.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------
Combine ignorance, arrogance and low altitude, and the result is guaranteed to be spectacular.

Last edited by airmotive; 06-21-2013 at 04:04..
airmotive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 04:03   #273
Jade Falcon
Go Blazers!
 
Jade Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Vancouver, WA.
Posts: 3,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK_Stick View Post
I'm surprised, you will calmly state the NTSB and all their investigation and findings are wrong, but then make a claim that is clearly refuted by all the evidence we do have.....


Its confusing really.



But then again, you obviously don't know jack about missiles, which you've blatantly proven again and again, yet you claim a missile incapable of engaging the flight, and incapable of reaching to the flight level it was at, made a hit, with a warhead less than 10 lbs, was capable of blowing a 747 in two, without leaving any of the evidence normally associated with a missile strike. So I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.



I'm done arguing with you. You're wrong, but you're emotionally invested in your argument, so you will never accept the facts, just keep arguing a flawed argument based around a lack of knowledge. Have fun with that.
Okay, AK, we know that sns3guppy was Captain of a 747 for some amount of time (though anyone can just "claim" something online, I think it's safe to assume that most people here on GT are honest about what they do/have done).

So what are your qualifications that allow you to state that it was NOT a missile hit? I myself don't believe it was, but I'm just curious to know your expertise. I assume, by stating it was not a missile hit, that you've served in the Military in some form that worked around/near Missile Pads of some sort?

Please clarify. This is NOT a doubt of what you're saying, rather, just a confirmation that you know what you're talking about.
__________________
AK-47 WASR 10/63, Puma M92 16" .454 Casull, Glock 22 .40 S&W, Marlin M60W .22 LR, Ruger GP100 4" .357 Magnum, Winchester M1400 12 ga.
Jade Falcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 04:17   #274
Reheater
Yarr
 
Reheater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Where the Army sends me
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jade Falcon View Post
Okay, AK, we know that sns3guppy was Captain of a 747 for some amount of time (though anyone can just "claim" something online, I think it's safe to assume that most people here on GT are honest about what they do/have done).

So what are your qualifications that allow you to state that it was NOT a missile hit? I myself don't believe it was, but I'm just curious to know your expertise. I assume, by stating it was not a missile hit, that you've served in the Military in some form that worked around/near Missile Pads of some sort?

Please clarify. This is NOT a doubt of what you're saying, rather, just a confirmation that you know what you're talking about.
It wasn't a missile. There exists no MANPAD capable of engaging that target in that profile.

I base that on being an Army Combat Pilot and having access to MSIC data that doesn't go on open source like Wikipedia.
__________________
Napalm solves a lot more problems then prayer.
Reheater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 06:10   #275
happy seal
Senior Member
 
happy seal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 4,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reheater View Post
It wasn't a missile. There exists no MANPAD capable of engaging that target in that profile.

I base that on being an Army Combat Pilot and having access to MSIC data that doesn't go on open source like Wikipedia.
Yeah, just like Gandolfini died of a heart attack. He was murdered by the Syrian government.
__________________
Be carefull, think first!
Support NRA.

"Off to the Salt Mine, My Friend"
happy seal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
anti-conspiracy kooks, reynolds heavy duty, truthers lol
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:42.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,362
450 Members
912 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42