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.

 

Simulate Flight 175

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I've been playing flight simulator 2004 for awhile now. I have the settings set to the most difficult settings, which makes the airplanes behave really close to actually being there. I have flown in real life, and it does a pretty good job of duplicating actual flight.

I decided to try to duplicate Flight 175, the plane that hit the second tower. I cannot get to 440mph without the plane becoming overstressed. Is it possible to fly at that speed at that altitude?

The only plane I have ever actually flown was a twin engine Piper Comanche, 1969. In the simulator, on the most realistic settings, I can take off and land with a Cessna 172 all day long. I think to be able to laser precisely steer a 757 directly into the center of a 375 foot wide building at 440mph, with a 124ft wingspan, twice, doesn't happen just from practicing on a flight simulator. Are there any commercial pilots here that can explain how they did this? Or is this flight simulator game flawed.




posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Well in flight simulator (have you played fsx?) the plane completely stops when it is overstressed but in real life the plane just doesnt stop right there it still keeps on going so I think it is possibly that the plane may of been overstressed but it would of still kept on going.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Ok, what about flight 77. A 757-200, with a cabin height of about 7 feet. The pentagon has a height of a little over 77 feet. They say that the plane was travelling at 530 mph.

The thing that boggles my mind about this is the difficulty of pulling this off. That phenomena that occurs when you get half the wingspan length above the ground, should have bounced it up over the pentagon, no?

Question 2:
To be able to pull this off on the first try, with a plane significantly bigger that what was trained on, is a very talented move.

The guys that drove that flaming jeep into the airport over in Europe, were supposedly doctors. What professions were these guys that took over these planes?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Yea I agree the turbulence from the ground on the pentagon "plane" must of been huge.... I do believe something fishy is up with that story but once you hijack a plane in midflight all you have to do is move the stick right? Dont have to toggle and switches (the talk to cabin button which they obviously hit wrong) I really dont know but if I were handed a plane in flight Im sure I could fly it into a building.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I suppose your right. If they made it to cruising altitude and speed, all they had to do was just steer, without making any other adjustments.

Is there a 757 pilot on here that can tell me whether or not this is possible, and what happens to a jet that is overstressed? Or how difficult it is to fly at such a low altitude at 530mph? I've been heavily researching 9/11 for over a year now, and there are so many things to question. From the disappearance of planes, to 3 buildings that fall in there own footprint on the same day.

My mind is so scientific, everything has an explanation. But there are so many anomalies in this event, it sometimes keeps me up at night. I show my friends, and they end up researching this on there own. If this had a viable explanation, it wouldn't be so intriguing to prove that this was planned. But it doesn't, and here we are trying to prove that it wasn't natural. Physics has its rules. And there are so many factors in this that just defies those rules.

Another thing that is odd, to me at least, is how anytime this is mentioned to any government employee, they have no clue what we are talking about. I am sure you have seen the video of John Kerry being asked about building seven, and how he acts like he has never heard of the controlled demolition theory, its like that with everybody. Look at how Rudi Giuliani attacked Ron Paul when he even considered talking about how we had a hand in the whole matter. Questions, questions, questions.

Sorry to be so long winded, but it just bothers me to no end.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
First off, they overestimate the structure damage numbers to leave a safety factor just in case. It has been shown on several incidences that an aircraft can exceed its design specs by a significant amount before suffering catastrophic failure. Beyond that, it becomes different from aircraft to aircraft. Just as with your car, some parts are just manufactured better, are newer, or are made of higher quality materials then others. That can very even from run-to-run or lot-to-lot, so the same part from this production run may fail a lot sooner then one from another production run.

Usually the first things to take damage or fall off are going to be the loose bits on the outside of the aircraft, such as control surfaces, nonessential airfoil pieces, service panels, etc. A commercial aircraft can continue to fly even after suffering enough structural damage to bend the actual frame. There are several older planes out there, which fly to this day, that have their frames warped or twisted, were trimmed out, and put back in rotation.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
I really dont know but if I were handed a plane in flight Im sure I could fly it into a building.


LOL depending on the area, I'm sure we all could. The problem is hitting the one targeted.

OP, check out the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website. Name sums it up.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Thank you gottago, I have not seen this site yet. I have got a lot of reading to do, trust me. I'll post my findings.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join