Get ready for guns in bars

I was once in a hotel and about two in the morning two fairly rough looking people were trying to get my door open. With my wife and two year old daughter in the bed butI didn't feel so threatened looking through the peep hole with my ruger redhawk 357 in my hand. Luckly for them the door didn't open.... If you have a permit to carry then whats the question?

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahem ...
.
Would that be his gun, or his firearm?
.
:o)
.

Also very funny. Clever and witty.

Tory II wrote:

Oil tankers use special equipment for preventing fires or explosions after oil is off-loaded. Empty tanks on oil tankers are more dangerous than full tanks.

The 'empty tank' thing isn't exactly a truism.
.
While it might said that such is true part of the time, if the temperature is such that the fuel fumes form the largest constituent of the tank atmosphere, then the atmosphere will be too rich for an ignition to take place.
.
The NTSB —in cahoots with the FAA— tried passing that ~complete line of BS~ to the public with the shoot-down of TWA FLT800.
.
And yes: It WAS INDEED a shoot-down.
.
I want you to think about this: That incident is the ONE AND ONLY instance in peacetime, where virtually NONE of the eyewitnesses were allowed to testify at a public hearing.
.
NONE.
.
In fact, even the U.S. Congressional hearings EXCLUDED the eyewitnesses.
.
Why would they have done that?
.
That tank simply could not have exploded the way they demanded for a number of reasons, but the main one was that due the fact of the rising altitude of the airplane and the vapors in the tank made the tank explosion IMPOSSIBLE: There wasn't enough oxygen to allow for that, because the fumes virtually flooded the tank all the way to the top and out the tank vents.
.
Hell, you could have used an ignitor for a jet engine and it =STILL= would not have accomplished much beyond producing mere smoke. READ: Self-extinguishing.

Highlander wrote:

<quoted text>
The 'empty tank' thing isn't exactly a truism.
.
While it might said that such is true part of the time, if the temperature is such that the fuel fumes form the largest constituent of the tank atmosphere, then the atmosphere will be too rich for an ignition to take place.
.
The NTSB —in cahoots with the FAA— tried passing that ~complete line of BS~ to the public with the shoot-down of TWA FLT800.
.
And yes: It WAS INDEED a shoot-down.
.
I want you to think about this: That incident is the ONE AND ONLY instance in peacetime, where virtually NONE of the eyewitnesses were allowed to testify at a public hearing.
.
NONE.
.
In fact, even the U.S. Congressional hearings EXCLUDED the eyewitnesses.
.
Why would they have done that?
.
That tank simply could not have exploded the way they demanded for a number of reasons, but the main one was that due the fact of the rising altitude of the airplane and the vapors in the tank made the tank explosion IMPOSSIBLE: There wasn't enough oxygen to allow for that, because the fumes virtually flooded the tank all the way to the top and out the tank vents.
.
Hell, you could have used an ignitor for a jet engine and it =STILL= would not have accomplished much beyond producing mere smoke. READ: Self-extinguishing.

I would not test your theory. Sniff a used empty portable gas tank.

Anyway, I keep only 1/4 of a tank of gasoline in a 60 gallon tank. Knock on wood, it never explodes.

Flight 800: very suspicious. But, new equipment has been added. The same principle for oil tankers is used. The fumes are pumped out of the empty tank, they're displaced with another gas. No ?

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
I would not test your theory. Sniff a used empty portable gas tank.

A 'gas' tank. That's gasoline, a high distillate, and =very= flammable.
.
A tank used for Diesel or heavy oil (Diesels ~is~ a heavy oil) presents little danger. Although I'll temper that remark by saying that I'd not consider lighting an acetylene torch or other high temperature source near the opening.
.

Tory II wrote:

Anyway, I keep only 1/4 of a tank of gasoline in a 60 gallon tank. Knock on wood, it never explodes.

Nor should it ever. Did you know that the sender in the tank is an expose wire-wound resistor?
.
Every time you take fuel out, put fuel in, and/or hit a bump in the road the wiper creates a small spark when moving from one winding to another.
.
I've yet to read of a tank fire caused by that kind of sender in an automobile.
.
Now think about this: Gasoline is EXTREMELY more subject to ignition than is JET A.
.
Further, the Fuel Quantity System (FQS) in almost all commercial aircraft is a capacitive system, i.e., there is no element in mechanical contact with any other, and so the ability of the system to create a spark of any degree of energy is so miniscule as to be non-existent.
.

Tory II wrote:

Flight 800: very suspicious. But, new equipment has been added. The same principle for oil tankers is used. The fumes are pumped out of the empty tank, they're displaced with another gas. No ?

Actually no, no new equipment has been added. That was window dressing for the public.
.
Boeing, AirBus, and the other aircraft makers went ballistic behind the scenes because of the added weight problems, AND because it WOULD NOT have made the planes any safer.
.
LOOK: Virtually EVERY TIME a tank had been drained, the tanks used to inert the fuel tanks would have to be replaced upon landing, because refilling them would take far too long. That operation in itself would require a functional test to verify the system prior to releasing the airplane for flight.
.
Would you care to guess how must THAT little operation would cost each time the airplane landed?
.
Additionally: Pumping the fumes out of tank? Not even! Virtually every fuel tank has a remainder of fuel which cannot be scavenged, owing to the design of the tank. That is ~especially true~ of the center wing tanks on large commercial airliners.
.
The outer wings themselves have one-way flapper valves which will allow the outboard fuel to flow inboard owing to the pitch of the wing. But since the =center wing= bottom is essentially flat and level, then there will be a considerable remainder once the tank is drained.
.
Those tanks are not ~completely flat~ because of the stringers and stiffeners used to strengthen them, and so fuel pools in between those items of structure.
.
Actually, upwards of perhaps 50-60 gallons of fuel ~may~ exist when the scavenging pumps are secured, and that amount is spread out over the entire lower surface of the tank of a large commercial airliner.
.
Once on the ground, there are tank drains can be used by the ground crew to remove most of that remainder. But still, there is that small remainder which has to be mopped up when the tank is entered for work.
.
So, even ~if~ you put a vacuum on the tank, the remainder will create fumes.
.
Next, because the tops of the tanks have vents which bleed-off fumes to the outer wing tips, any such scheme of 'inerting' the tanks will be as about as useful as pissing on an electric fence. The inerting gas will have to COMPLETELY fill the entire space and remain. Have fun trying to make that happen.
.
Now do you understand?

Yea, I understand. A few witnesses said they saw what looked like a rocket strike. Schumer was very paranoid about this type of Terror.

A fume explosion would not be a powerful explosion.

Flight 800 was in many small pieces.

NTSB said the explosion was sparked by an exposed fuel pump wire in the 'empty' tank.

A new 767 also dived into NewYork waters. They blamed failed wire insulation (on a newer aircraft).

Another dove into NewYork city after 9/11 - they blamed excessive use of the rudder (crazy).
----------
Why give Terrorists the credit when you know that's what they want...wink

Tory II wrote:

Yea, I understand. A few witnesses said they saw what looked like a rocket strike. Schumer was very paranoid about this type of Terror.
A fume explosion would not be a powerful explosion.
Flight 800 was in many small pieces.
NTSB said the explosion was sparked by an exposed fuel pump wire in the 'empty' tank.

One very important thing: In the center wing tanks of a 747, there is =NO SUCH THING= as "exposed wiring."
.
In the center wing tank of a 747, ALL of the wiring is OUTSIDE the tank.
.
In fact, it's all located in the FORWARD end of the body gear wheel wells, which happens to be the REAR of the center wing tank.
.
The pumps are constructed of TWO assemblies:
.
[1] The mechanical assembly of the impeller itself is inside the tank.
.
[2] The electrical motor is OUTSIDE the tank, for ease of replacement.
.
The two are connected through a sealed mechanical shaft which passes through the aft bulkhead of the tank itself.
.
When I say 'sealed,' what I mean to say is that the shaft has a 'O' rings on both ends of the shaft to keep fuel from leaking out of the tank.
.

Tory II wrote:

A new 767 also dived into NewYork waters. They blamed failed wire insulation (on a newer aircraft).
Another dove into NewYork city after 9/11 - they blamed excessive use of the rudder (crazy).
----------
Why give Terrorists the credit when you know that's what they want...wink

Yes, I know: Never let any crises go unused ...
.

Jack Burton wrote:

<quoted text>
mental midgets and freedom of speech?
all out ignorance and posting on the net?
...any other combinations you want to lay claim too?

Hahahahaaa