It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Internatiomnal space station actually within an ordinairy airplane..

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DutchMasterChief
....
But of course, you're right. It's impossible to damage something and it remain intact.


I completely agree.

Micro fractures are a good way of defining damage without parts falling off.

Even major fractures can occur without anything flying off. (Less likely due to air pressure though)

The way the recorders stopped suddenly right as they pulled up really does suggest that there was some form of damage. Those things don't stop for no reason whatsoever.




posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The NTSB isn't going to put non-factual data in the report, so they're not going to speculate in it.


They already explained the FDR cutoff with factual data.

They don't have a need to speculate and inject non factual data like you are doing.


But again, how does such a pull out cause damage to a plane that would stop the recorders but leave all controls intact, like they also concluded.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




The way the recorders stopped suddenly right as they pulled up really does suggest that there was some form of damage. Those things don't stop for no reason whatsoever.


Off course, the NTSB who already explained this, doesn't have a clue, but you, do.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: TerryDon79




The way the recorders stopped suddenly right as they pulled up really does suggest that there was some form of damage. Those things don't stop for no reason whatsoever.


Off course, the NTSB who already explained this, doesn't have a clue, but you, do.


But what you're missing is they haven't really explained it. Check over the report again.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




But what you're missing is they haven't really explained it. Check over the report again.


No need for me, I even just posted the qoute......



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

They didn't explain it. They merely noted that it happened. The NTSB couldn't show the cause of them stopping conclusively, so didn't try to. It's called a fact based report for a reason.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: TerryDon79




But what you're missing is they haven't really explained it. Check over the report again.


No need for me, I even just posted the qoute......


They never actually stated a reason. The report said it was consistent with them losing power.

"Being consistent with" and "being the reason for" can be 2 different things or the same thing. The report never says what the reason is.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

The NTSB report only showed when the recorders stopped. They didn't give an exact reason why they stopped. The time given for the FDR stopping was exactly the time the aircraft underwent a high G maneuver, well after the throttles were pulled all the way back and the engine switches moved to cutoff. The throttles were pushed to full power prior to them stopping as well.
edit on 2/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol, are you guys for real. The reason is obviously the loss of power. Their failure is consistent with the loss of power. This means that they are saying this IS the reason.

And again, there is absolutely no mention or indication whatsoever that any damage occured at this point.

Stop making stuff up.
edit on 21-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

And loss of power doesn't necessarily mean loss of engine power. Read the report. The recorders kept working after the engine switches were cutoff. They kept working after the throttles were pulled all the way back and the comment "they are closed" was recorded. The FDR even recorded the throttles being pushed to full power prior to the aircraft pulling up.

So that must mean that electrical power isn't instantly cut off in your world.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol, are you guys for real. The reason is obviously the loss of power. Their failure is consistent with the loss of power. This means that they are saying this IS the reason.

And again, there is absolutely no mention or indication whatsoever that any damage occured at this point.

Stop making stuff up.


Like I said, something being consistent with something else doesn't make it fact.

BTW, how does the recorders have anything to do with the supposed parabolic flight?



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It came up trying to show that an extended parabolic flight risks an over speed and possible over G situation.
edit on 2/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




So that must mean that electrical power isn't instantly cut off in your world.


In the NTSB's world that is. You know those guys that are actual experts that do this for a living, and not some guys on on an internetforum acting like they are. I'll take their word.

Could it be that some electrical power remains for some time because of some kind of buffer, or generators in the engines still providing electricity for some time because parts are still moving?

I am sure those NTSB guys must have thought about this and are not just making stuff up.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

No. If the batteries aren't switched on, or the APU running, or ground power plugged in as soon as the engines are shut off, all power immediately stops.

Quote where the report says conclusively that it was because of the engines being shut off. As stated, loss of power could be because they lost a power bus, or generator that supplies power to the recorders. It doesn't necessarily mean because the engines shut off.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Now can you explain what kind of damage, caused by overspeed and pulling out of that dive, would stop the recorders, but would not damage the controls and keep the plane structurally intact.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

No. If the batteries aren't switched on, or the APU running, or ground power plugged in as soon as the engines are shut off, all power immediately stops.

Quote where the report says conclusively that it was because of the engines being shut off. As stated, loss of power could be because they lost a power bus, or generator that supplies power to the recorders. It doesn't necessarily mean because the engines shut off.


You qoute the parts where they say anything that you are claiming.

They are clearly saying that the loss of the recorders is consistent with the loss of power caused by engine shut off.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

You really can't understand that an aircraft can be damaged without anything falling off can you. You can lose power from an engine in an over G situation, damage a generator, or a number of other things that won't cause anything to fall off but damage the aircraft.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Consistent with is not conclusive. If I'm driving a car and the engine stalls it could be consistent with me turning the key off. Doesn't mean I did.
edit on 2/21/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




You really can't understand that an aircraft can be damaged without anything falling off can you. You can lose power from an engine in an over G situation, damage a generator, or a number of other things that won't cause anything to fall off but damage the aircraft.


I am not even talking about things falling off.

You explain to me how and what damage exactly would stop those recorders.




Then you should be able to quote that from the report.


I already did and you know it. Norhing you say is supported anywhere. What I am saying is what is in that report exactly.

Give it up.

The only reason you are refusing to accept what they are saying is because it proves my original point. In any other case you would have ran with what they said here.

Please.

edit on 21-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DutchMasterChief

Consistent with is not conclusive. If I'm driving a car and the engine stalls it could be consistent with me turning the key off. Doesn't mean I did.


Ridiculous, since it is proven that the engines were in fact turned off, causing a loss of power, which naturally leads to the loss of recorders.

Why didn't the NTSB evden include this scenario of which you keep insisting actually caused the loss of recorders, if there is a reason to assume this?

Are they not capable enough do their job properly. They don't have your insight?
edit on 21-2-2016 by DutchMasterChief because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join