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.

 

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

page: 22
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
Thank you for your reply jfj, that is a great response to my question.

Xtrozero
You answer as if I am attacking...I am not. i was just wondering what the reaction of you all would be if the pilots failed the experiment. It was an honset question. As for me, if there was a high enough success rate, then yes I would be willing to adjust my view and admit that they could have done it. Thank you.


Sorry brother,

I just read it quickly with the impression that you meant if they did fail that was undeniable proof of XYZ conspiracy, and the way I would look at positive or negative results is only as data to help continue to look for the truth, and that truth could still be down many different paths.
That is the problem with many conspiracies that are already formulated from the start and not discovered as the data leads us for once they are formulated there tends to be no deviation from the path for only data that supports this preformed conspiracy is considered.




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Thanks man! I totally agree with you, and I see how you would feel that way from the way my post comes off.....I would have felt the same way.

I am concerned that we have not heard from Mr Lear in a while and I am wondering if this is going to happen at all. I think that we can grow from the experiment and continue the debate.

I have a question. Do you think that the official story fits in with a conspiracy? I mean there are so many things they chose to leave out, and there are things that are plain false (sources requested?) that I think they have created the biggest conspiracy of all!

I am open to all sides, but from what I have seen and heard, I think that either they were so incompetent that they are covering up, or they had a hand in it. This discussion helps me in that I can take the point of people with more experience than me, and draw conclusions from it. At this point, the pilots abilities are still up in the air...IMHO.

Again I appreciate your knowledge and input on this post.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


You used the acronym 'DEW' in an earlier post...know what it means?


Know it? I have spent time explaining the effects on physical matter in a few posts in this forum's discussions. I am quite familiar with what it means, and have been for quite some time.

Yes, I do know that holography and DEW are not the same. However, they are both based in the same laser technology, which has been researched and developed since at least the 1950s. The theories of both were developed long before that.

Do you recall Reagan's Star Wars program? On what do you think that was based as far back as the 1980s? With the development of that DEW program, how hard can be to use laser tech to make 3-D images as large someone choses to make them? Compared to making DEW a reality, oversized holograms have to be a breeze to make any size anyone chooses.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 


I thought the "mouse" in the video, plus other video images, at the following website were quite realistically well done. What do you think?

www.tradeshowhologram.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


But seriously look at them mate- transparent, weird colours... No sale here.

Holograms need special lighting and photographic conditions. CGI alteration of 9/11 footage - maybe.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Look Jeremy Clarkson has taken the controls of a fast jet, and he has played laser quest dog fighting above California, and he can’t even drive that well, never mind fly.

Even my brother who has only just realised he has opposing thumbs has controlled a light plane above the Ribble estuary.

So don’t tell me that Osama with his millions and time on his side can’t find a few people intelligent enough to fly a large comparatively lethargic plane without the need of a take off or landing.

If I was going to do it I’d work out where was the best spot to take over the plane and then work that out to a time when I start my action. From that point I would roughly know my altitude, direction and speed. Then its just a case of turning in to the target and holding the course.

Don’t tell me that only a commercial pilot can turn a plane. They may have the heads up on the dangerous bit at the beginning and end, but I am sure turning left or right a bit is not why they get a good wage.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
[I have a question. Do you think that the official story fits in with a conspiracy? I mean there are so many things they chose to leave out, and there are things that are plain false (sources requested?) that I think they have created the biggest conspiracy of all!


Well I think the aircraft that hit the towers actually hit the towers and were piloted by those that are named, but I'm not sure who is actually behind it and so I am open for anything, even parts of our own government, or even a friendly government as capable.

The pentagon I see has more mystery around it. I do not think it was impossible, and so they were either damn lucky then or further data needs to come to light, like more flying experience than what we all think they had.

I do believe that a 200,000 plus pound aircraft with the energy of 500+ mph and the heat of the fuel/fires was enough to weaken the structure to start the collapse that lead to a dominoes effect from all the weight above the floors that were hit, so the controlled dets or micro nukes I do not see as needed or used.

I don’t believe that aliens are anywhere close to earth and I do not believe we have hidden technology 50 or 100 years ahead of what is known, and so I do not believe in the holograph theory.

One thing I look at in all these conspiracies is how big of involvement is needed to pull it all off and in every case we are talking 100s if not 1000s of people involved, plus the timing needed plus many other factors that I just do not see any of them as very good.


[edit on 24-1-2008 by Xtrozero]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I'm back. I finished my Affidavit, had it notarized and as soon as it is filed with the United States District Court Southern District of New York in support of Morgan Reynolds (on behalf of the United States of America) which will be on or before January 28 I will post it here.

Basically I explain exactly why there could not have been any planes crashing into the World Trade Center towers. Impossible.

Now to go to work on the Great World Trade Center Simulator Experiment.

First I've got to check and see if the simulator will even perform such a ridiculous, infinitely stupid and impossible feat such as fly at 540 mph as sea level which is about 127 mph over VMO (maximum operating speed). Ha!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Capt Lear,

Welcome back. You swore an affidavit in New York? Did you drive, or fly? 'cause, I read somewhere here on ATS that you don't fly anymore, you drive everywhere.

But that's not why I chimed in...I was wishing to comment about your use of 'mph' in your post. You know as well as I that we speak in knots, nowadays.

If you have a chance, please scroll up to one of my posts earlier...regarding the simulator test. I think I could be available to participate...except, I know how to fly the B767, so that might disqualify me. However, I would enjoy the opportunity to see the experiment play out.

My schedule is free, except for March 12-18, when I will be in Las Vegas. And, I have a vacation planned for July 10-16. But if you can arrange a simulator in Dallas/Ft Worth and wish to invite 'contestants' then please consider me as ready and willing.

Thanks...and welcome home.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
This might be a good place to start, John...Since the flight speed is so rare and all.


Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
reply to post by OrionStars
 


But seriously look at them mate- transparent, weird colours... No sale here.

Holograms need special lighting and photographic conditions. CGI alteration of 9/11 footage - maybe.


What makes you think just because you view something as weird, others view it the same way? I saw no transparency others say they saw. I am not going to change what I saw, because people ask or demand it to make them feel more secure.

You saw what you saw. I saw what I saw. The best we can do is agree to disagree by personal, individual observation.

Show me a group of people saying they all saw the same thing, in spite of the fact some people changed their story because it was easier than being different, I will point out the true meaning of groupthink in living color.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Beautiful find, Taxi-Driver!

Yeah....airshow displays...the regs get lifted.

BUT, it shows that, indeed, an airplane can be flown close to the ground at high speed...not just fighters, but airliners too!!

Of course, the GPWS circuit breaker (C/B) was pulled...along with a slew of others, depending on the airplane...just to disable the audible warnings that might be distracting, in the cockpit, during those displays. As I said, in an airshow, the regulations can be 'lifted'...but only because the pilots and the airplanes involved have been 'vetted' before.

Thanks, again!! Great catch, the Mods should grant you a bonus!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Beautiful find, Taxi-Driver!

Yeah....airshow displays...the regs get lifted.

BUT, it shows that, indeed, an airplane can be flown close to the ground at high speed...not just fighters, but airliners too!!


Could you please define the words "high speed" and "close to ground level"?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Watch the video Orion and your questions will be defined. Unless, of course Airshows exclusively use holograms as well.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Exactly how does watching the video - again - answer my questions? Did someone on the video say the speed and distance from the ground, and it was missed?

From what I could determine the last time that video was mentioned, people were inserting their own opinions on speed and distance off the ground. I do not recall it being mentioned in the video.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Hello, OrionStars,

Did you see the video? OK, guess you did...now...'GroundEffect' is something you are fond of telling us about. You attempted to say that 'GroundEffect' would prevent an airplane flying close to the ground.
You talked about one-half the wingspan, and such...well, much of that is correct. There is something called 'ground effect' AND, it does have something to do with one-half of the wingspan...

Here is the lesson on aerodynamics...a wing, ol a conventional airplane, will produse a vortice, at the tips. It will spiral from UNDERNEATH, to the top of the airfoil.

Example, the left wingtip will produce (viewed from behind) a clockwise spiral. The right wingtip, (viewed from behind) will produce a counter-clockwise spin.

For ANY airplane, when close to the the ground, this will cause a 'cushioning' effect...helpful in a LANDING. BUT, when an airplane is flown close to the ground, in a 'clean' configuration, then all I have said above is moot.

There are ample examples of accidents that are CFIT (Contolled Flight Into Terrain).

the NTSB Archives will probably have many Reports to prove what I am saying.


*edit for spelling*


[edit on 24-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Those planes are not traveling 500mph....please.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That does not answer my questions either. From where did people get the speed and distance off the ground just from the video they keep stating? That is all I asked.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


They made it up to prove their point. It proves you wrong, cant you see that?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Taken from wiki:

"One of the most important of these effects is the Wing In Ground effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately twice a wingspan's length off the ground or other level surface (such as the sea). The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at a height of one half the wingspan length above the ground. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing...."
en.wikipedia.org...

Apparently the pilot that hit the pentagon was not inexperienced, and was comepletely accustomed to flying at a high speed low to the ground...real...

by the way if you look at the pentagon video, which doesnt show anything to support a plane hitting it...the object was much closer to the ground then any of those in the videos presented......not to mention moving WAY faster......slow your videos down frame by frame and I guarantee that you will be able to clearly make out an airplane....please prove me wrong. Also please show me in the Pentagon video, which is frame by frame, where the plane is.....

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Jeff Riff]




top topics



 
8
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join