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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


Then I am surprised not to see any of those much smaller, lighter planes wavering, much less not being blown away, by the thrust of the engines at 400 mph, at 20' above ground level, at that close to sea level and so close to those other smaller planes. Yes, I am well aware they tie down those smaller planes at airports, when not in hangars, and why.

What people are passing off in this discussion, is never done at air shows. If people say it is, then prove it with something besides a misleading video and very bad analogy to 9/11 reports.


Oh, my...Yes, I saw the Cessnas and Pipers, all light airplanes, tied down in the foreground of that video...emphasis on the FOREGROUND!!

You saw the video...no, what people are "passing off in this discussion, is never done at air shows." ?? You mean, no one at an airshow ever intentionally flies a jet into a building? Wow! Never realized that.

Did you not read the post, in the Op's original, where this so-called 'expert' claims an airplane cannot fly close to the ground at high speed? Please, pay attention.

Wingtip vortices are most pronounced when the airplane is producing a great amount of lift, that is, when it is in the landing configuration (slats and flaps extended) and is slow and heavy. The vortices will make a little wind, on the ground, since interaction with the ground causes them to dissipate quite rapidly. In the air, they might persist longer...like a horizontal tornado, if you will...but only for a few minutes, and the ambient conditions will have an effect...


edit to add...didn't see your bit about the 'thrust of the engines' affecting the airplanes, which were tied down WELL away from the runway...

Do you seriously think that engine thrust spills out sideways??? Must be part of that 'quantum aerodynamics' idea......


[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Your posts have nothing to do with the accurate comparison to what is reported at the Pentagon. So why bring it up?

No, I do not know that. My crystal ball has been the shop since 11/21/63, and the shop closed up on 11/22/63. No sign of it since.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


So, ummm, to respond to your last post, where you mentioned the Pentagon...that was not a 'Heavy', it was B757...this OP wants us to decide whether it is 'impossible' to fly a 'heavy' jet...those two went into the WTC...

edit typo

[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Since the speeds are not comparable, it is an issue which goes to credibility of claims made. When lacking credibility, any and all claims are worthless. There is far more involved in successfully flying and remaining safe than speed and distance off the ground.

There are the priniciples of aerodynamics involved and consideratiion of weight and mass (all physical matter) in conjunction with quantum mechanics energy involved in aerodynamics, under any and all conditions. Forget and of those key issues in discussion. Any claims become worthless.

Physics - the study of physical matter cause and effect
Quantum mechanics - the study of how energy affects physical matter



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I want to know how a plane flying 20 ft off the ground at 400mph, flying over a freeway, did not BLOW cars off the road? wouldn't something like that have happened?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, you forgot to mention 'Kinetic Energy'...know how much energy is imparted by the speed of the projectile?

Think about bullets, and how faster bullets cause more damage, given a controlled experiment, where the mass of each bullet is the same, and the target is the same...velocity matters, when matter is involved.

Stupid thought experiment...throw a bullet at someone. Won't do much. Accelerate it to 'bullet' speed...wow! Hurts! Then, accelerate it even faster...same bullet, same initial mass...different results. Even fatal results...



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Oh, my...Yes, I saw the Cessnas and Pipers, all light airplanes, tied down in the foreground of that video...emphasis on the FOREGROUND!!

You saw the video...no, what people are "passing off in this discussion, is never done at air shows." ?? You mean, no one at an airshow ever intentionally flies a jet into a building? Wow! Never realized that.

Did you not read the post, in the Op's original, where this so-called 'expert' claims an airplane cannot fly close to the ground at high speed? Please, pay attention.

Wingtip vortices are most pronounced when the airplane is producing a great amount of lift, that is, when it is in the landing configuration (slats and flaps extended) and is slow and heavy. The vortices will make a little wind, on the ground, since interaction with the ground causes them to dissipate quite rapidly. In the air, they might persist longer...like a horizontal tornado, if you will...but only for a few minutes, and the ambient conditions will have an effect...

edit to add...didn't see your bit about the 'thrust of the engines' affecting the airplanes, which were tied down WELL away from the runway...

Do you seriously think that engine thrust spills out sideways??? Must be part of that 'quantum aerodynamics' idea......
[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]


Do you seriously think thrust is confined to the rear circumference of the engine and does not travel, including spreading out at powerful impact force, depending on the pressure put on those commercial jet engines in acceleration? What happens when pilots have to reduce altitude and then rapidly pick up altitude again? What happens in the engines from start to finish, including thrust from the rear of those engines?

You took the time to identify all those smaller planes as if it matters at all. You even saw them tied down. You noticed all that. That is amazing. For what reason you did that completely escapes me for relevance.

That video has no relevance to what was reported on 9/11/2001 or the article. It is merely another blatant red herring by those force feeding the "official" reports to everyone else not interested. If you truly understood aerodynamics and the principles involved, you would automatically know why without all the red herrings or ad hominems. So would others on your side.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


Yes, it would have. As anyone knows when driving along a highway, and commercial jetlines can be no more than 40' - 60' above coming in on landing at the international airport. It gets worse for thrust and vaccum effect, if driving the road along the fenceline separating the runways and terminal from the road.

Many a small plane came down too low and hit the 10' fencing separating the airport from the rest of city. Commercial jetliners have been known to do the same. They are almost at a runways when they cross the
fenceline with their wheels down. The thrust of those engines can still be powerful, as can that vacuum effect for belly wing lift they keep trying to lose, so they can safely land, without bouncing all over the runway on landing.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion, you forgot to mention 'Kinetic Energy'...know how much energy is imparted by the speed of the projectile?


The same bad analogy again. Bullets have nothing to do with 9/11/2001. Why keep redundantly bringing up the same bad analogy? It does nothing but automatically lose your arguments for you.

All energy is kinetic energy if physical matter is moving. Which particular kinetic energy would that be?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
If wind of politics blows from the extreme right you have to maintain a hard left steering course to keep a healthy straight direction.

No matter if this muppet show of terrorists was able to fly the aircraft or not, i came to the conclusion, that 9/11 was nothing else but an inside job. We haven't got anything else but some poor videoclips and a weak story told by the media. The truth is: War is necessary and they just need an excuse.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


YES, Orion...the thrust of the engine, out the exhaust, is directed AFT...that is why it is called thrust!!!

Sheesh! Really, this is getting silly again, and I am sorry, OrionStars, I mean no disrespect, but much of what you post indicates a lack of understanding of aviation, aerodynamics, and physics. Sorry to be blunt, but please do not confuse the discussion with nonsense.

edit to add...A simple lesson in the dynamics of how a jet engine works...basically, it is --- Suck, Squeeze, Burn, Blow---

Actually, that also tends to work in an internal combustion engine too, if you think about it...

But, a jet engine is a kind of internal combustion engine, after all...except the 'Blow' part is where the energy is directed, instead of into a crankshaft or transmission, as in an automobile.

I provide clear, concise explanations. I wish my posts would not be ... I hate to say it, but here goes... 'hi-jacked'...



[edit on 16-1-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Stop it. You know you are misinterpreting my words to falsely make yourself look knowledgeable without merit. Red herring and ad hominem away. It falls on blind eyes of those who actually earned their knowledge by merit.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


I don't know why so many people are saying that it's impossible for an inexperienced pilot to fly a plane.

A good example of this was recently on mythbusters where jamie and adam landed a 747 flight simulator with zero training with only the instructions of a ground person. Yes I know it's just a flight simulator but NASA has some pretty accurate stuff.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Stop it. You know you are misinterpreting my words to falsely make yourself look knowledgeable without merit. Red herring and ad hominem away. It falls on blind eyes of those who actually earned their knowledge by merit.


and on yet another thread, you're making claims someone is once again misinterpreting what you said
and the "red Herring" phrase re-appears also



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


The point is that they did some pretty skilled stuff for being relatively inexperienced "pilots." Impossible maybe not, improbable indeed.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


I don't know why so many people are saying that it's impossible for an inexperienced pilot to fly a plane.

A good example of this was recently on mythbusters where jamie and adam landed a 747 flight simulator with zero training with only the instructions of a ground person. Yes I know it's just a flight simulator but NASA has some pretty accurate stuff.


Great. Now we are getting back to the subject. The answer to your question is:

Your view describes people preferring to hear and read only that which originates from neophytes and pseudo-experts of like mind. Rather than thinking for self, and seriously considering, plus, immediately or eventually agreeing with logical reason, as presented by actual experts versed in their fields of study and/or employment.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jeff Riff
 


I don't know why so many people are saying that it's impossible for an inexperienced pilot to fly a plane.

A good example of this was recently on mythbusters where jamie and adam landed a 747 flight simulator with zero training with only the instructions of a ground person. Yes I know it's just a flight simulator but NASA has some pretty accurate stuff.


Great. Now we are getting back to the subject. The answer to your question is:

Your view describes people preferring to hear and read only that which originates from neophytes and pseudo-experts of like mind. Rather than thinking for self, and seriously considering, plus, immediately or eventually agreeing with logical reason, as presented by actual experts versed in their fields of study and/or employment.


So are you saying the mythbusters episode I'm referring to, never happened?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

So are you saying the mythbusters episode I'm referring to, never happened?





posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

So are you saying the mythbusters episode I'm referring to, never happened?




Look, you may know what you mean but I don't. Why do you think I'm asking the question? Do you see a problem when quite a few different people, on quite a few different threads, have a hard time understanding what you mean?



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



So you are saying that it would have been very easy for the planes to have been remote controlled into the building. I see, that makes sense. Since it would have been practically impossible to hire goons to hijack the plane and fly them into buildings they just used remote.....




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join