Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times


reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 07:39 PM by titorite
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Here's the CBS video of the approach and impact.
Remember that the depth of field of the camera lens gives the dive a steeper appearance than it actually was.

UA175 Dive



Wow Pilgrum. Thanks for the video. That was quite a nose dive.
Can you explain why the nose dive isn't present here LINK

If you can debunk that one for me perhaps you can explain this compliation video that shows every angle of flight 175s impact? LINK2

There was no plane nor hologram. Only CGI graphics.

[edit on 10/18/2007 by titorite]


reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 07:52 PM by titorite
reply to post by Valhall

Thats actually why I posted that second video which shows all five different approach angles.


reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 08:13 PM by Valhall
Okay, then I'll comment on the third link in the post (the compilation).

The first angle shows slightly over 1 second of level flight between plane entering frame and impact...again, within the 3 second level flight of Pilgrum's footage.

The second angle is above the impact zone and we just see the fireball.

The third angle shows 1 second of level flight before impact - again within the 3 seconds of level flight on Pilgrum's.

The fourth angle shows the plane coming in at a far distance at a dive, going out of sight behind WTC 1 and then about 5 seconds later impacting WTC 2...doesn't contradict Pilgrum's footage, actually compliments it, but we can't say what it was doing (diving or leveling) once it went out of sight.

Fifth angle I can't even see the plane (we're looking at from front on and it's coming from behind the building).

Sixth angle I see the plane rotate from dive to level and approximately 3 seconds later impact building.

Seventh just shows fireball.

Eighth shows between 1 and 2 seconds of level flight between entering frame and impact.

Ninth shows 1 second between entering frame and impact - skewed camera angle but looks close to level to me.

Tenth shows 2 seconds of near level flight between coming into frame and impacting building.

And the beauty of it is - it's all right there for you to view yourself. No commentary trying to make you see it differently than it is, just watch the footage you supplied, watch Pilgrum's - they don't contradict each other. They reinforce.


reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 08:43 PM by Valhall
Originally posted by OrionStars
It had to be hot dogging to pull off the unpracticed manuevers alleged by the "official" reports....
I am going to take the word of professional pilots, Boeing engineers, and aerospace experts over opinions of laypersons.


Well first of all you (and whomever you're quoting) are treating the issue as if the pilot had some pre-planned fantastical flight plan that included such things as - getting that damned close to the ground just before going into the Pentagon. No he didn't - he was aiming for the building. You can look at it as some fantastical flying feat, but some of us look at it as he almost botched the whole thing...he ALMOST dove it into the ground!

The WTC impacts (from a flying standpoint versus a performance standpoint) are rather "unremarkable"...they flew them into the biggest buildings sticking out of the landscape for pete's sake. Fly - aim - hit.

As for whose word you take I've already learned how you work and don't care to get another dose of your vacuous verbage and self-appointed importance.

I'm not a layman in this area by the way. I'm a degreed Aerospace Engineer. I graduated top of my graduating class. And your insolence means nothing when your words show ignorance of the subject. In this area - your facade falls down, much like your comments of hot dogging.

The topic of this thread - HOWEVER - is the performance of the planes and whether they could fly at the prescribed speeds, at the altitudes they were at. I believe that merits investigation - no matter how hard you and others try to divert the topic.


reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 08:54 PM by Zaphod58
Originally posted by OrionStars
I am going to take the word of professional pilots, Boeing engineers, and aerospace experts over opinions of laypersons. I do that because I did study the laws and principles of aerodynamics, plus, applied those principles to real life situations - my own experiences, plus, what I can readily ascertain is and is not possible, in consideration of all factors and conditions involved - case by case.


Ok, here are some words of professional pilots and engineers for you to take.

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

www.aerospaceweb.org...


reply posted on 6-2-2008 @ 10:43 PM by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars





I and others are going by the allegations in the "official" reports compared to real life precedents set by documented aviation history. Allegations never proved by those feeding out the "official" reports.


Where is it documented that the 767, either one of them, could not perform the maneuvers that were performed on 9/11? I would prefer the laws of physics and quantum mechanics if you don't mind. No need for hearsay or personal intuition.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 13 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags