Originally posted by Satyr

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by PuPP

Logic would dictate that if a large aircraft hit the Pentagon that there would be some damage to the building from the wings.

I'm no expert on ballsitics, but then neither are you

Think about it, though. Either the wings entered the building, which would mean that there would be wing shaped holes, or they were sheared off, and they'd stay outside the building. What happened in this case, then? The wing span on a 757 is about 124ft. The engines hanging from the wings weigh 40,000 lbs. each!
www.boeing.com...
They didn't put any holes in the walls? There's no evidence of wings at all? It doesn't seem right, somehow. I'm not saying it wasn't a 757, but I'm saying we should all consider the possibilities. Wings and engines both are huge. Most people have seen air crew members standing near a jet. The engines alone dwarf a human standing next to them. We're to believe that these things left almost no trace, even though they slammed into the side of the building? I'd like to know how this can be so.

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr

The software of the BOEING 757 and 767 over rides pilot error and will not let a pilot make banking turns like the PENTAGON plane which was pulling 5 Gs at its final approach or the second WTC plane that was pulling 3 Gs. This is the most fruitful area to explore for those wishing positive proof that the terror attacks were faked.

rense.com...

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Satyr]

Bart,
Randall may have his heart in the right place but I'm afraid he's bought into some pretty wild claims with no evidence.
I'm a Captain for a major airline on the Boeing 757/767 aircraft and have over 30 years of flying experience, over one-third
of which is in Boeing aircraft. And I'm telling you that Randall's claim that "Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes,
it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit." is totally false.

The article Randall cites starts off completely wrong and is one misstatement after another.

> Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11...They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set
> so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software
> in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited
> to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

Totally wrong.

The Boeing 757/767 aircraft both have traditional hydromechanical flight controls. And while the autopilot (when engaged)
limits g loads for passenger comfort (among other things), once the autopilot is disconnected the pilot has full maneuver authority
within the mechanical limits of the flight control actuation system. In other words, it is not only definitely possible for someone
to have flown those aircraft on 9/11 "in such a manner from the cockpit" but it is the ONLY possibility since there is no way
either aircraft, or any commercial aircraft, could somehow be flown by "remote-control". The pilot would have absolute control
of the aircraft. All the bogus claims made in the article, which include that the Boeing 767/757 are "commuter" airplanes that
can be flown by "remote-control" are immediate give-aways to anyone who has any aviation background that whoever wrote
the article knows nothing about commercial airliners.

Secondly, I disagree with Randall's claim that "cell phones do not work in airplanes". This one I have personal experience with.
My spouse was on a business trip once and called me at home on their cell phone while midway through a cross-country flight!
After a few minute when I realized that the cell phone call was from the airplane I said we'd better hang up because who knew
what antenna was picking up the service and what kind of roaming charges we'd incurred!

Besides my own personal experience with a cell phone call from an airplane, here is another source from a Wireless Week article:

www.wirelessweek.com...

> Although airline passengers are warned against using their mobile phones in flight, it's fairly well-known that private
> airplane pilots often use regular cellular and PCS phones, even if it is illegal. Not quite as well-known, however, is that
> people have used their wireless phones to make surreptitious calls from the bathrooms of airliners.

Hope this helps end the Randall discussion Bart.