Is flight MH370 in Diego Garcia?

by eddie Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:21 pm

First topic message reminder :

Malaysia Flight 370 has now been missing for 27 days, the March 8th date of disappearance drifting further and further away. This is particularly torturous and frustrating for those with family and loved ones aboard the missing Malaysia jet and has also led to wild speculation about what happened to Flight 370.

One of the passengers, Philip Wood, has been the focus of one of the more prominent alternative theories about the fate of Flight 370. While some see this as just another Flight 370 Conspiracy Theory, a text and picture reportedly from Philip Wood, have gained a lot of traction among bloggers, on Facebook, and around the web.

The story goes that Wood, a high level IBM executive who really was on Malaysia Flight 370, sent a text from his iPhone more than a week after Flight 370 disappeared. The text reportedly read:

“I have been held hostage by unknown military personnel after my flight was hijacked…I work for IBM and I have managed to hide my cellphone… I have been separated from the rest of the passengers and I am in a cell. My name is Philip Wood. I think I have been drugged as well and cannot think clearly.”

Along with the text came a photo which, even though just a blacked out image, had lots of information attached that iPhone photos automatically include when taken. GPS coordinates of the phone’s location were most interesting and placed it, and presumably Woods, at a U.S. Naval Base on an island called Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1199399/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-search-new-leads-technology-and-theories-abound/#EPxlWFQZcXhXqpSz.99

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:32 am

gerber wrote:
harvesmom wrote:

Evening Gerber,

I know we will get called conspiracy theorists lol, why is why I just threw this link in in passing, but to my mind there may well be something in it, if it has landed somewhere rather than lost at sea this seems more likely than Diego Garcia.

I agree

Me for one does not think it is down in the ocean. Too easy. And the one area not looked at as far as the media the internet or blogs are concerned is where you have pointed the finger..... The smoke screen gets thicker but the internet gets cuter. Wherever it is IMO is a place where communication is either non existent due to the Geography or has been made impossible due to technology...

I am bonkers btw....

Your not bonkers i agree with you that plane is not in the sea but where is it ?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:30 am

harvesmom wrote:
eddie wrote:Anyway. Is this plane in Diego or not?

Well according to this its in Afghanistan

http://rtlec.co.uk/russian-intelligence-claims-mh370-passengers-alive-in-secret-location/

That link wont work for me, What was it HM?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:44 am

Original Quill wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:Quill, I'm interested to know how you come to that conclusion on a flameout on a Boeing 777 that is set on auto-pilot when that happens.
Using the fuel imbalance process to correct an engin flameout on just one engine requires pilot intervention and as both engines never run at the same fuel consumption levels one is going to flamout before the other. If one engine flames out then the auto pilot would correct the trim to compensate for the loss of power and when the second one flames out then the TAC system would disengage and the auto pilot would kick out leaving the trim set at the compensating levels resulting in the aircraft being aerodynamically unstable meaning a probably spiral descent into the ocean.

A landing similar to the one that happened on the Hudson river is almost impossible without the controls being handled by a pilot.

I tell you why I say that. The MD-80, though bought out by Boeing, is actually a McDonnell-Douglas design. (MD=McDonnell Douglas) It is atypical of the Boeing designs. The MD-80, former DC-9, is a delicately designed aircraft, depending more on wing stability. It has a beautiful wing that anchors the aircraft, and the tail stabilizers are simply for guidance, up down, left right. But if anything goes wrong with those tail stabilizers, the airframe is erratic. You can't control an aircraft with a single axis.

The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details. The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe. Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

Their jet series began with the 707. It has gone through the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with the same basic stability. They have gotten a lot bigger, and their power plants have gotten a lot more powerful. But the basic aircraft remains the same: built for steady flight, natural passive glide ratio, and even balance.

The Boeing aircraft is like the German Mark IV tank: heavy, steady and reliable. It has been the same throughout the whole 7-series. The 777 is the new fly-by-wire technology, same as the F-117, but it is built upon the same old reliable airframe. Its electronics would compensate for flight corrections due to a flame-out, but the air frame would remain steady and even.

That plane doesn't go into the drink head first. No matter what you do with it, if it's left on autopilot it has a natural easy glide ratio...and goes down belly first.

Really? Then you will be happy to tell us what computer language you used?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:56 am

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I tell you why I say that. The MD-80, though bought out by Boeing, is actually a McDonnell-Douglas design. (MD=McDonnell Douglas) It is atypical of the Boeing designs. The MD-80, former DC-9, is a delicately designed aircraft, depending more on wing stability. It has a beautiful wing that anchors the aircraft, and the tail stabilizers are simply for guidance, up down, left right. But if anything goes wrong with those tail stabilizers, the airframe is erratic. You can't control an aircraft with a single axis.

The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details. The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe. Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

Their jet series began with the 707. It has gone through the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with the same basic stability. They have gotten a lot bigger, and their power plants have gotten a lot more powerful. But the basic aircraft remains the same: built for steady flight, natural passive glide ratio, and even balance.

The Boeing aircraft is like the German Mark IV tank: heavy, steady and reliable. It has been the same throughout the whole 7-series. The 777 is the new fly-by-wire technology, same as the F-117, but it is built upon the same old reliable airframe. Its electronics would compensate for flight corrections due to a flame-out, but the air frame would remain steady and even.

That plane doesn't go into the drink head first. No matter what you do with it, if it's left on autopilot it has a natural easy glide ratio...and goes down belly first.

Really? Then you will be happy to tell us what computer language you used?

Whatever happened to taking what posters say at face value?
Anyway Im amazed you didnt find out everything you needed to know when you spent so much time tracing and researching him Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 12:04 pm

Ah but Nems, Quill has claimed to be so many things, anyone with a brain would start questioning. And taking what posters say at face value was Speak. He can't even remember whether he was an Asst District Attorney or Asst Attorney General, he swops them round all the time.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:10 pm

Sassy wrote:Ah but Nems, Quill has claimed to be so many things, anyone with a brain would start questioning. And taking what posters say at face value was Speak. He can't even remember whether he was an Asst District Attorney or Asst Attorney General, he swops them round all the time.

yeah well as someone Pmd me the other day and I quote

"If you timeline everything Sassy has seen, done and experienced, she is approx 186 years old"

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 1:12 pm

Point is, I could time line it, Quill couldn't.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:44 pm

Sassy wrote:

Point is, I could time line it, Quill couldn't.

Ah right so getting one over Quill is the dish of the day
I think you still have the hots for him tbh

by gerber Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:57 pm

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:Ah but Nems, Quill has claimed to be so many things, anyone with a brain would start questioning. And taking what posters say at face value was Speak. He can't even remember whether he was an Asst District Attorney or Asst Attorney General, he swops them round all the time.

yeah well as someone Pmd me the other day and I quote

"If you timeline everything Sassy has seen, done and experienced, she is approx 186 years old"

So that equates to being around 26 and a half.........

Twisted Evil

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 3:50 pm

Sassy wrote:Ah but Nems, Quill has claimed to be so many things, anyone with a brain would start questioning. And taking what posters say at face value was Speak. He can't even remember whether he was an Asst District Attorney or Asst Attorney General, he swops them round all the time.

He is more believable than sm being a lawyer i know you believe it but i think your the probably the only who does believe sm is a lawyer .

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:55 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I tell you why I say that. The MD-80, though bought out by Boeing, is actually a McDonnell-Douglas design. (MD=McDonnell Douglas) It is atypical of the Boeing designs. The MD-80, former DC-9, is a delicately designed aircraft, depending more on wing stability. It has a beautiful wing that anchors the aircraft, and the tail stabilizers are simply for guidance, up down, left right. But if anything goes wrong with those tail stabilizers, the airframe is erratic. You can't control an aircraft with a single axis.

The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details. The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe. Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

Their jet series began with the 707. It has gone through the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with the same basic stability. They have gotten a lot bigger, and their power plants have gotten a lot more powerful. But the basic aircraft remains the same: built for steady flight, natural passive glide ratio, and even balance.

The Boeing aircraft is like the German Mark IV tank: heavy, steady and reliable. It has been the same throughout the whole 7-series. The 777 is the new fly-by-wire technology, same as the F-117, but it is built upon the same old reliable airframe. Its electronics would compensate for flight corrections due to a flame-out, but the air frame would remain steady and even.

That plane doesn't go into the drink head first. No matter what you do with it, if it's left on autopilot it has a natural easy glide ratio...and goes down belly first.

Really? Then you will be happy to tell us what computer language you used?

Fortran IV...some Basic. We ran three IBM 705s and a couple of 1401s and a 1410. When I left we were phasing out the 705s and replacing them with 360s.

Then, when I went to Berkeley I had a part-time job as a programmer for their 6400s, in Moses Hall computer center. Same language. At Rutgers University, where I went to graduate school, I worked as a programmer/operator for the dean of women, Douglas College (at that time Rutgers was an all male college, with an affiliated women's college). Computers were the way I paid my way through university and grad school.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:03 pm

Really, what year would that be?

Because North American Aiviation in Los Angeles had nothing to do with Boeing until 1996 when they merged with it. In fact they had more to do with military and space research. They were the chief contractor for the Apollo Command/Service Module and the second stage of the Saturn V. The Apollo 1 fire in January 1967 was partly blamed on the company.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:05 pm

Sassy wrote:Really, what year would that be?

Which position?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:14 pm

The first job you had out of high school when you said it gave you info on Boeing, when Boeing wasn't linked to that company then and they were dealing with military aircraft and space research.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:27 pm

Sassy wrote:

Point is, I could time line it, Quill couldn't.

Quill can't timeline it???

North American Aviation, Los Angeles--1964.

Berkeley--65-69.

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1969--1976...MA 72, PhD 76.

Law School, 1976--1979, JD 79.

Arizona Attorney General, 1981 on.

Now, I'd like to see this timeline you could make, Sassy.

Most people say no to life. I say yes. Then the lazy whiners come back to me and say, 'You couldn't have done all that.' My response: you lazy f***ers got bogged down with cars, boats and other toys, and then you think others are just as lackadaisical. There's another world out there, with people who get things done.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:29 pm

1964 - so how did you learn about Boeing aircraft there when they weren't dealing with them then?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:42 pm

Sassy wrote:The first job you had out of high school when you said it gave you info on Boeing, when Boeing wasn't linked to that company then and they were dealing with military aircraft and space research.

Sassy, you don't work for an Aircraft manufacturer without becoming familiar with airframes and flight dynamics. Everyone of us in the industry knew who the other was, and what kind of airframes they were building.

North American Aviation built the P-51D, which happened to save Europe. So I wouldn't worry about it's affiliation with the military. They also made the F-86 sabre jet and the F-100 super sabre, as well as the North American XB-70 Valkyrie. Well, hell you can look it up:

wiki wrote:
The Columbus, Ohio division of North American Aviation was instrumental in the exclusive development and production of North American's A-5 Vigilante, an advanced high speed bomber that would see significant use as a Naval reconnaissance aircraft during the Vietnam War, the OV-10 Bronco, the first aircraft specifically designed for forward air control (FAC), and counter-insurgency (COIN) duties, and the T-2 Buckeye Naval trainer, which would serve from the late 1950s until 2008 and be flown in training by virtually every Naval Aviator and Naval Flight Officer in the US Navy and US Marine Corps for four decades. The Buckeye's name would be an acknowledgment to the state tree of Ohio, as well as the mascot of Ohio State University.

The F-86 Sabre started out as a redesigned Fury and achieved fame shooting down MiGs in the Korean War. Over 9,000 F-86s were produced. Its successor, the F-100 Super Sabre, was also popular.

Some 6,656 F-86s were produced in the United States, the most postwar military aircraft in the West, as well as another 2,500 elsewhere.

It also manufactured the X-15 through its Div. 7, Rocketdyne. It changed its name to Rockwell International and built parts of the the Mercury and the Apollo space crafts, as well as the Space Shuttle. Rockwell International's defense and space divisions (including the North American Aviation divisions Autonetics and Rocketdyne) were sold to Boeing in December 1996. Initially called Boeing North American, these groups were integrated with Boeing's Defense division.

Rocketdyne was eventually sold by Boeing to UTC Pratt & Whitney in 2005. UTC later sold Rocketdyne to Aerojet (GenCorp) in 2013.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:52 pm

We were talking about Boeing aircraft, and you specifically said you learnt about Boeing aircraft there.

You didn't learn about Boeing aircraft there, so fess up, you were lying.

So you went from getting your LD to Attorney General in 2 years? Course you did. BTW, you said Asst Attorney General they other day. And don't forget that time out in the Middle East you talked about.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:54 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Sassy wrote:Ah but Nems, Quill has claimed to be so many things, anyone with a brain would start questioning. And taking what posters say at face value was Speak. He can't even remember whether he was an Asst District Attorney or Asst Attorney General, he swops them round all the time.
He is more believable than sm being a lawyer i know you believe it but i think your the probably the only who does believe sm is a lawyer .

Sassy is an expert stalker. She hacked into my account with the California Bar Association, and got all the data on my background. Then it was Rutgers University. She even saw my PhD dissertation. Then, just to say she could, she sent all her findings to me via PM over at Speak Free. Speak Free broke apart over her hacking activities.

So don't worry, sassy knows everything and is way beyond questioning me.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:58 pm

Hacked into your account? It's all freely available on line. Google is pretty good these days.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:59 pm

Sass, my exact words were:

Quill wrote:I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details.

That's all I claim to know about Boeing Aircraft.

You are the hacker. Go find out for yourself. BTW, computer hacking is a felony in the US. Also in the UK.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:01 pm

I google, wouldn't know how to hack or where to start. So, you were saying, in 1964 you learnt about Boeing aircraft there, even though Boeing weren't associated with it until the 199Os? Is that right?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:15 pm

Drop it sassy. You've already lost. The late fifties were the days when heavy, jet propelled airliners were being designed. The Boeing 707 came out in 1957. It is the prototype for the Boeing commercial airliner.

It was a lively time. First jets, and all. Everyone in the industry knew the characteristics of the Boeing, the Convair, even the British Comet.

Hacking is defined as unauthorized access, not only into computers, but computer accounts. Any unauthorized entry is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the US, and the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 in the UK.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:17 pm

Now, you were saying, you learnt about a Boeing plane in 1964 by doing some computer programming in a very basis language for a company that weren't dealing with Boeing aircraft. Is that right?

The account you are talking about is a public account, I can't hack and didn't and you are trying diversionary tactics because your boasting has caught you out - again.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:21 pm

Did you receive specific authorization? Of course not.

You broke the law, dearie. It's a felony on both sides of the pond.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:23 pm

Sassy wrote:Now, you were saying, you learnt about a Boeing plane in 1964 by doing some computer programming in a very basis language for a company that weren't dealing with Boeing aircraft. Is that right?

The account you are talking about is a public account, I can't hack and didn't and you are trying diversionary tactics because your boasting has caught you out - again.

Bloody hell Sassy you arent even denying stalking him.
Its creepy

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:24 pm

She can't deny it, Nems. She sent to me the proceeds of her crime...copies at least.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:Did you receive specific authorization? Of course not.

You broke the law, dearie. It's a felony on both sides of the pond.

Googling a site that is freely available to everyone? Yea right Quill. Diversion is not going to work. So, in 1964 you learnt about Boeing aircraft by doing some computer programming for a company in very basic language, who had nothing to do with Boeing at the time. Is that right?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:26 pm

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:Now, you were saying, you learnt about a Boeing plane in 1964 by doing some computer programming in a very basis language for a company that weren't dealing with Boeing aircraft. Is that right?

The account you are talking about is a public account, I can't hack and didn't and you are trying diversionary tactics because your boasting has caught you out - again.

Bloody hell Sassy you arent even denying stalking him.
Its creepy

Wahey, I won my bet!

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:27 pm

So Quill, in 1964 you learnt about Boeing aircraft by doing some computer programming for a company in very basic language, who had nothing to do with Boeing at the time. Is that right?

Remember, you said: The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details. The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe. Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

That was 1964 you said. At a time North American Aviation had nothing to do with Boeing.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:30 pm

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:Now, you were saying, you learnt about a Boeing plane in 1964 by doing some computer programming in a very basis language for a company that weren't dealing with Boeing aircraft. Is that right?

The account you are talking about is a public account, I can't hack and didn't and you are trying diversionary tactics because your boasting has caught you out - again.

Bloody hell Sassy you arent even denying stalking him.
Its creepy

Its certainly creepy even obsessive

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:31 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Nems wrote:

Bloody hell Sassy you arent even denying stalking him.
Its creepy
Its certainly creepy even obsessive

Yup she certainly has it bad for Quill

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:33 pm

I'm proving that what I said to you about Quill is right, he is a fantasist and a manipulator and he got you just were he wanted you, and you were too stupid to see through the lies, I wasn't.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:34 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Nems wrote:

Bloody hell Sassy you arent even denying stalking him.
Its creepy
Its certainly creepy even obsessive

Oh dear VOD, me telling you I wasn't going to go along with you about SM made you a little stressed didn't it.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:36 pm

Nems wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
Its certainly creepy even obsessive

Yup she certainly has it bad for Quill

I don't know what is going on but Quill knows what frigging jobs he has done and yet sassy is telling different

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:37 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Nems wrote:

Yup she certainly has it bad for Quill
I don't know what is going on but Quill knows what frigging jobs he has done and yet sassy is telling different

A fantasist never knows what they have done because they forget what they said. And it this case, he said something that could not be possible and is now trying to cover his tracks.

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:38 pm

Sassy wrote:So Quill, in 1964 you learnt about Boeing aircraft by doing some computer programming for a company in very basic language, who had nothing to do with Boeing at the time. Is that right?

At that time Boeing and North American were competitors. They probably shared a lot of contracts, but I wouldn't know.

At that time, as I recall, the LA Division of North American was working on the XB-70. They had a row of the huge beasts in the hanger next to the LA Airport. I worked in the adjacent office building.

Talk in the lunchroom was always about airplanes, flight characteristics and innovations. Of course, there was much more talk about the XB-70, but there were always comparisons with other manufacturers' airplanes. It would have taken an act of god to prevent it.

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:39 pm

Sassy wrote:I'm proving that what I said to you about Quill is right, he is a fantasist and a manipulator and he got you just were he wanted you, and you were too stupid to see through the lies, I wasn't.

Well you need to make your mind up!
One minute its David and FTL that are the manipulators now its Quill?!

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:41 pm

Sassy wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
Its certainly creepy even obsessive

Oh dear VOD, me telling you I wasn't going to go along with you about SM made you a little stressed didn't it.

sassy i don't give a shite about sm i told you that and i certainly am not stressed , i also don't care one bit about your childish view about going along with it . I wanted to make peace with sm and she turned it down , and for your information i didn't ask for her forgiveness i have nothing to be forgiven for she said vile things about my whole family and nothing you or her say can justify that , she is not the angel you make her out to be and others know this also . So to make it very clear sm could never make me stressed but that is very laughable indeed Razz

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:44 pm

Sassy wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
Its certainly creepy even obsessive

Oh dear VOD, me telling you I wasn't going to go along with you about SM made you a little stressed didn't it.

ou

There you go again dragging someone else in. This has nothing to do with sexy and you have the cheek to call others shit stirrers!

by gerber Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:45 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Oh dear VOD, me telling you I wasn't going to go along with you about SM made you a little stressed didn't it.
sassy i don't give a shite about sm i told you that and i certainly am not stressed , i also don't care one bit about your childish view about going along with it . I wanted to make peace with sm and she turned it down , and for your information i didn't ask for her forgiveness i have nothing to be forgiven for she said vile things about my whole family and nothing you or her say can justify that , she is not the angel you make her out to be and others know this also . So to make it very clear sm could never make me stressed but that is very laughable indeed

Are you on the right thread or have you been on the Communion sherry again ?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:46 pm

Sassy wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
I don't know what is going on but Quill knows what frigging jobs he has done and yet sassy is telling different

A fantasist never knows what they have done because they forget what they said. And it this case, he said something that could not be possible and is now trying to cover his tracks.

And why is it not possible, sass? I've been open and honest. No reason for anything else.

Go ahead. Tell us why it is not possible. You researched my life, my BA, my MA and PhD, as well as my law license. You know it's all true. You sent the stuff to me. So you think with all that, I'm going to lie about a pissy little job I had before university?

Are you confused? What exactly is it that you are now saying?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:46 pm

Sassy wrote:
Nems wrote:

Bloody hell Sassy you arent even denying stalking him.
Its creepy

Wahey, I won my bet!

Who were you betting with?

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Sassy wrote:So Quill, in 1964 you learnt about Boeing aircraft by doing some computer programming for a company in very basic language, who had nothing to do with Boeing at the time. Is that right?

At that time Boeing and North American were competitors. They probably shared a lot of contracts, but I wouldn't know.

At that time, as I recall, the LA Division of North American was working on the XB-70. They had a row of the huge beasts in the hanger next to the LA Airport. I worked in the adjacent office building.

Talk in the lunchroom was always about airplanes, flight characteristics and innovations. Of course, there was much more talk about the XB-70, but there were always comparisons with other manufacturers' airplanes. It would have taken an act of god to prevent it.

Fess up - you lied, all the wiggling in the world can't change it.

by gerber Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:47 pm

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Wahey, I won my bet!

Who were you betting with?

Freddy Power....

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:47 pm

gerber wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
sassy i don't give a shite about sm i told you that and i certainly am not stressed , i also don't care one bit about your childish view about going along with it . I wanted to make peace with sm and she turned it down , and for your information i didn't ask for her forgiveness i have nothing to be forgiven for she said vile things about my whole family and nothing you or her say can justify that , she is not the angel you make her out to be and others know this also . So to make it very clear sm could never make me stressed but that is very laughable indeed

Are you on the right thread or have you been on the Communion sherry again ?

naughty Gerber i told you i don't drink when i take communion it is Ribena Razz

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:49 pm

gerber wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:
sassy i don't give a shite about sm i told you that and i certainly am not stressed , i also don't care one bit about your childish view about going along with it . I wanted to make peace with sm and she turned it down , and for your information i didn't ask for her forgiveness i have nothing to be forgiven for she said vile things about my whole family and nothing you or her say can justify that , she is not the angel you make her out to be and others know this also . So to make it very clear sm could never make me stressed but that is very laughable indeed

Are you on the right thread or have you been on the Communion sherry again ?

VOD tried to get me on side about SM last night via pm. I wouldn't go along with it, so she is doing her best to have a go in every way she can find. Well, at least it means Quill has got someone else trying to cover up his lies. Bless her lol

by Guest Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:49 pm

gerber wrote:
Nems wrote:

Who were you betting with?

Freddy Power....

Wish I had put money on it lol

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:52 pm

Sassy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

At that time Boeing and North American were competitors. They probably shared a lot of contracts, but I wouldn't know.

At that time, as I recall, the LA Division of North American was working on the XB-70. They had a row of the huge beasts in the hanger next to the LA Airport. I worked in the adjacent office building.

Talk in the lunchroom was always about airplanes, flight characteristics and innovations. Of course, there was much more talk about the XB-70, but there were always comparisons with other manufacturers' airplanes. It would have taken an act of god to prevent it.

Fess up - you lied, all the wiggling in the world can't change it.

Not only didn't lie, but I won the bet. BTW, who was the bet with? Lol

by Original Quill Fri Apr 11, 2014 7:56 pm

Sassy wrote:
gerber wrote:

Are you on the right thread or have you been on the Communion sherry again ?

VOD tried to get me on side about SM last night via pm. I wouldn't go along with it, so she is doing her best to have a go in every way she can find. Well, at least it means Quill has got someone else trying to cover up his lies. Bless her lol

Sass, you are the one doing the cover up. All the lies you have tried to fabricate about me, Nems, FTL, David, and Bee...god, who else...they all blow up in your face. This one just blew up and you you are covering yourself by accusing me??? Well, I guess a good defense is a hard offense. But, now we notice you are trying to worm out of it by switching to VOD.

Well, interesting...

by Sponsored content