On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:38:39 GMT, in alt.culture.alaska, You
<you@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article
><8bd5dc0f-caa8-4107-8017-12ced246c7fb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> jerry <electrician@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 10:23 am, You <y...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <e5998a2f-5522-4adb-ab8f-8c8d0c6bd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >
>> > jerry <GeraldCNew...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > The aircraft producing the sonic booms were not in existence when
the
>> > > trans-Alaska pipeline or the North Pole refinery was designed and
>> > > built. So how could they be designed to withstand these types of
>> > > sonic booms? This question is so obvious I am surprised that your
>> > > brilliant mind did not catch it.
>> >
>> > Jerry, you are way to sheltered....... Sonny, there have been
>> > Supersonic Aircraft flying over Alaska since the early 60's...
>> > where have you been...under a Rock......
>>
>> Oh really, F22's have been flying over Alaska since the 1960's. How
>> enlightening.
>
>It would seem that Old Jerry has a READING comprehension problem....
>
>He stated "The aircraft producing the sonic booms were not in existence
>when the trans-Alaska pipeline or the North Pole refinery was designed
>and built."
>
>Then I stated "Sonny, there have been Supersonic Aircraft flying over
>Alaska since the early 60's..."
>
>Now just "Where" in the above was a specific "Type" of aircraft,
>Mentioned, other than "Supersonic" of which there have BEEN many,
>flying over Alaska, since the early 60's? It does TAKE a Supersonic
>Aircraft, or Object, to create a Sonic Boom. That is a Scientific Given.
>But nowhere in the above, does it REQUIRE a specific Airframe, or
>Aircraft to generate these Sonic Booms, or that these specific Sonic
>Booms, are different, or more energetic than any previous Sonic Booms,
>experienced in the area, in prior years.
>
>Your hole is getting deeper Jerry.......
It was funnier when he want upset about wolves.
--
Ak'toh'di
|
