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.

 

FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 60
24
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Unfortunately, the expert informing me for many years on procedures of the FAA and pilots became deceased in 2003.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by apex
 


If that is what you chose to believe, feel free. There are solid forensic reasons, particularly with commercial aircraft, they do reconstructions. Those reasons have little to nothing to do with what they think is the cause of the destruction of aircraft.


Well in that case, educate us, show a link or give us those forensic reasons.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


But you limited it to the angle sweep, and left out all the other pertinent very important factors involved in full design. Now all you want to do is harp on your own error, which you can do on your own time not mine.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Tell me something Orion....

Flight 585 was referenced several posts ago (which you had no input about) The FDR was found along with the CVR. These tools along with the evidence found at the scene and a similar crash allowed them to determine the casue of the crash. (some time later)

Is this hearsay?

Do we ignore it ?

NO!

The evidence helped make repairs to this specific style aircraft so the problem would not happen again.


hear·say 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.

www.dictionary.com

All the information I have posted has been verified.... and offical. You just keep on ignoring as long as it helps you sleep at night



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


If you wish an education in forensics and genetics, get it on your own time and at your own expense just as I did. Or prove me wrong.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If you wish an education in forensics and genetics, get it on your own time and at your own expense just as I did. Or prove me wrong.


Sorry, too busy studying Aerospace engineering at university. So I'm quite interested to know how rebuilding a plane would help with genetic forensics.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


WHAT ????

FDR = Flight Data Recorder

Do you know what one is??


The flight data recorder (FDR) is a flight recorder used to record specific aircraft performance parameters. A separate device is the cockpit voice recorder (CVR), although some versions (including the original) combine both in one unit. Popularly, though almost always falsely, known as the black box used for aircraft mishap analysis, the FDR is also used to study air safety issues, material degradation, and jet engine performance. These ICAO regulated "black box" devices are often used as an aid in investigating aircraft mishaps, and its recovery is second only in importance to the recovery of victims’ bodies. The device's shroud is usually painted bright orange and generally located in the tail section of the aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObviousThe evidence helped make repairs to this specific style aircraft so the problem would not happen again.


And enabled us to develop life saving recovery procedures until the problem was fixed . (February this year)



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by CaptainObvious





Tell me something Orion....

Flight 585 was referenced several posts ago (which you had no input about) The FDR was found along with the CVR. These tools along with the evidence found at the scene and a similar crash allowed them to determine the casue of the crash. (some time later)

Is this hearsay?

Do we ignore it ?

NO!

The evidence helped make repairs to this specific style aircraft so the problem would not happen again.



Tthat is a categorically false and misleading statement. UAL 585 in Colorado Springs was not due to a yamper damper failure. The flight data recorder information was specifically fabricated to match USAIR 427 in Pittsburgh which was also not due to a yaw damper failure.


All the information I have posted has been verified.... and offical. You just keep on ignoring as long as it helps you sleep at night


It may have been verified and it may be official but it is certianly not the truth.

Thanks for the post as uninformed as it is.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlearTthat is a categorically false and misleading statement. UAL 585 in Colorado Springs was not due to a yamper damper failure. The flight data recorder information was specifically fabricated to match USAIR 427 in Pittsburgh which was also not due to a yaw damper failure.


Both accidents was due to rudder PCU failure.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
The link to the Pentagon article stated why the FBI was not allowed. Nor were they allowed to investigate the WTC complex either. FEMA was instructed only FEMA was allowed. Then FEMA prevented NIST from taking but a small portion of the evidence to lab test. NIST could only take what FEMA allowed to be taken.


Problem is that by law the FBI is the main investigator at a crash site that is considered a crime scene.

The media stated it was a terrorist act as soon as the second plane hit the tower. The DoD stated it was a terrorist attack later in the day, guess the media had better resources.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


Tthat is a categorically false and misleading statement. UAL 585 in Colorado Springs was not due to a yamper damper failure. The flight data recorder information was specifically fabricated to match USAIR 427 in Pittsburgh which was also not due to a yaw damper failure.



John, not to get too personal, but do you actually WONDER ...............................??

Life is not a conspiracy.

I would also appreciate it if you could stay on topic. If you feel flight 585 has it's own CT, I suggest you start a new thread for that.

Edit to remove a minor personal attack (prior to Mods noticing)

[edit on 8-1-2008 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by Freaky_Animal




Both accidents was due to rudder PCU failure.


PCU over ride is 80 pounds. There was no indication in either accident that opposite rudder was ever attempted. In neither case was the power pulled back nor were the speed brakes deployed.

A PCU failure does not cause an airplane to roll inverted and split S into the ground.

Thanks for the post but neither accident was caused by a PCU failure and both probable causes were fabricated.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by johnlear]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by Freaky_Animal




Both accidents was due to rudder PCU failure.


PCU over ride is 80 pounds. There was no indication in either accident that opposite rudder was ever attempted. In neither case was the power pulled back nor were the speed brakes deployed.

A PCU failure does not cause an airplane to roll inverted and split S into the ground.

Thanks for the post but neither accident was caused by a PCU failure and both probable causes were fabricated.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by johnlear]


Well if PCU failure leads to rudder hardover it will cause loss of control if speed is below crossover speed on the 737, reason for that is that the ailerons doesn't have authority over the rudder at such a low speed.
I flew the 737 back then and still do, so i'm well aware of the B737 rudder issue, and the correct recovery procedure in case of a rudder hardover.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Freaky_Animal]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Originally posted by CaptainObvious



Life is not a conspiracy.



No, but the coverup of UAL 585 and USAIR 427 actual causes were.

I would respectfully request you do not use those particular accidents as examples of good accident investigation.

They were just as fabricated as all of the alleged accidents of 911 were.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Prove it !

You lack ANY evidence to back up your fantasy.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by CaptainObvious




Prove it !

You lack ANY evidence to back up your fantasy.



It would be my pleasure. First, I need the number of your Airline Transport Pilots Certificate and the date it was issued.

Second I need to know how many hours you have in command of any transport category certificated airplane.

This is to be make sure I am not trying to prove an aeronautical technical issue to a bartender.


Thanks.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks for proving my previous post John. Perhaps one day you will learn about evidence and try using it to back up your fantasies.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The plane was traveling at the speed of a .45 bullet. Thats why the comparison was made.

Sure, what a brilliant comparison - not.

I guess it's too much to consider that they are shaped differently, without even worrying about the huge difference in their speeds.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by apex
 


This is totally off topic. However, this is a reason why forensic investigations are done on crashed aircraft. This was a case where illegal parts from another crashed aircraft were illegally placed in what once was a safe jetliner. The FAA has well-documented this particular case and took it quite seriously:

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join