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.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 45
1
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
So like I originally stated. The improper configuration of the flaps and slats were what caused the airplane to crash.


No actaually the improper configuration fo the flaps and slats caused it to hit the light pole and that CAUSED THE PLANE TO CRASH.

You even stated they would have missed the pole had the flaps and slats been in normal configuration.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


NO!! ULTIMA, you have no idea what you're talking about!!!

The light pole was struck just seconds before the airplane rolled-over, in a stalled condition....and continued to roll over, striking the buildings on the ground....darn it!! Read the FULL report!!!!!!




posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No. The plane was going to crash no matter what.


Last time i post this.

The plane was BROUGHT DOWN by hitting the light pole as the NTSB report states.

The improper flight controls did not bring the plane down, hitting the pole brought the plane down.


The airplane collided with obstacles northeast of the runway when the left wing struck a light pole located 2,760 feet beyond the end of the runway. Thereafter the airplane struck other light poles, the roof of the rental car facility, and then the ground.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Then why does the NTSB report state that the plane crashed due to improper configuration of the flaps and slats? Do you even understand how they work? And don't throw that you were a crew chief in the AF at me to say you know all about how planes fly.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No. The plane was going to crash no matter what.


Last time i post this.

The plane was BROUGHT DOWN by hitting the light pole as the NTSB report states.

The improper flight controls did not bring the plane down, hitting the pole brought the plane down.


The airplane collided with obstacles northeast of the runway when the left wing struck a light pole located 2,760 feet beyond the end of the runway. Thereafter the airplane struck other light poles, the roof of the rental car facility, and then the ground.



[edit on 19-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


NO....ULTIMA.....you DID NOT read the full report!!!!

Use your FOIA expertise, and order the full report.....you are IMPLYING that striking a light pole caused the crash...it is incorrect, and disengenuous. You must learn the full story, to get a fuller understsanding.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
The pilots believed that the instability of the MD-80 was being caused by a microburst of air turbulence and incorrectly reacted.

The airplane was in the air for the whole of 14 seconds.

Facts:
1. Flight 255 made the runway roll without extending flaps nor slats.
2. The roll took much longer than usual.
3. At take-off, the AoA went from 11 degrees to 14 degrees.
4. It was banking/rolling anywhere from 15 to 35 degrees.
5. The airplane was roughly 50 feet off the ground.
6. There was only 14 seconds for the pilots to react.
7. The pilots reacted to avoid a microburst that was never there.

As stated in the NTSB full report, there was no way the pilots would have been able to correct the flight of the MD-80 in the 14 seconds. They even state that:

the Safety Board concludes that the pole's additional height was not a causal factor


[edit on 19-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Then why does the NTSB report state that the plane crashed due to improper configuration of the flaps and slats?


1 last time.

The improper flaps and slats CAUSED the plane to hit the light pole which CAUSED THE PLANE TO CRASH.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You never answered my question. I'll state it again.

Do you believe that in the improper configuration of the MD-80, that it would have been able to continue flying had the light poles not been there?

[edit on 19-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Do you believe that in the improper configuration of the MD-80, that it would have been able to continue flying had the light poles not been there?


Well it would have gone further and probably not hit the building and flipped over if IT DID NOT HIT THE POLE THAT BROUGHT IT DOWN.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
You never answered my question either. Do you even understand what flaps and slats are for? If you do not deploy the flaps and slats, and take off, you are not going to stay in the air. You are going to use much more runway, require much more speed to get airborne, and unless you can KEEP that speed, which most planes CAN'T, especially a commercial airliner at take off weight, you're coming down.

Flaps and slats are designed to increase wing area, to give more lift. Without that lift, you have to increase the speed to get the same amount of lift. Some aircraft can get away without slats (fighters and small aircraft), but a large heavy aircraft, like the MD-80 needs to have them both deployed for a safe take off. Otherwise they stall, because the wing doesn't produce enough lift, because the speed is too low. The light pole DID cause damage, but it didn't shear the wing off completely like you state, and it didn't cause the crash. It CONTRIBUTED to the crash, but the primary cause was improper setting of flaps and slats.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Zaphod, he's not going to pay attention.

It's a little like trying to explain to Moon Hoax 'believers'....they pick up any little 'factoid' to support their pet theory, and ignore all of the solid science that refutes their little world view...



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You never answered my question either. Do you even understand what flaps and slats are for?



Yes i have explained and showed my eductaion and background many times. The flaps and slats did not bring it down. Hitting the light pole brought it down.

Do you believe it would have hit the building if it had not hit the the light pole?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It wouldn't have made one bit of difference if they had hit the building or not. The aircraft STALLED at 50 feet of altitude. No airplane in existance can recover from a stall at 50 feet. The stall came about because the flaps and slats were not deployed. But I guess you know better than Weedwhacker, who flew commercial planes and is an instructor pilot, and the NTSB as to what caused the crash.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It wouldn't have made one bit of difference if they had hit the building or not. .


Hitting the pole caused the plane to crash the way it did.

Yes it would have crashed anyway , but hitting the pole casued it to crash they way it did. It would have crashed differently from just the flaps and slats not being in the correct position.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
The video's of proffessional pilots doing low fly by's with the same types of plane mean nothing and I'll tell you why.

1)Controlled setting. all vehicles, other planes, and people are off to the side a good 20-50 yards away.

2)These are some of the BEST pilots out there, under no distress, of people trying to bang the cockpit door in, and knowing they are gonna die. i.e. no sweaty palms, ,clear thinking, ect.

Now here's where all the videos fail to prove anything.

There are no vehichles, or people on the runway that these 767's and the like are doing thier low fly by's, which was the case on 9/11. According to official reports Flight 77 flew directly over a free way, filled with morning traffic, he didn't had a 40-100 yard clearing to do his low flyby, didn't have to clip lightpoles and stay on course.

Lay out some junk cars ON THE RUNWAY (Directly Underneath) where these expert pilots are gonna do these low fast fly by's and you'll get a more accurate account of what happened on 9/11.

The back wash is extremely more significant fdirectly behind the plane, and hardly significant at all 20-40 yards on eaither side.

Those low fly by videos on you Tube mean ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA.

Try again please.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Hitting the pole caused the plane to crash the way it did.

Yes it would have crashed anyway , but hitting the pole casued it to crash they way it did. It would have crashed differently from just the flaps and slats not being in the correct position.


Which makes hitting the pole irrelevant to the cause of the crash. It changed the WAY that it crashed, but it was completely irrelevant to the CAUSE of the crash.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
The video's of proffessional pilots doing low fly by's with the same types of plane mean nothing and I'll tell you why.

Those low fly by videos on you Tube mean ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA.

Try again please.


You are wasting your time. If people still believe the official story after almost 7 years (even with tons of informatoin that question the official story)you are not going to change their minds too eassy.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well it would have gone further and probably not hit the building and flipped over if IT DID NOT HIT THE POLE THAT BROUGHT IT DOWN.


Actually, it wouldn't have. The NTSB did a simulation of the airplane's run with both flaps and slats retracted. The results were that it still crashed at the real life impact zone.

The only way the airplane would have cleared the light poles is if the pilot knew that his slats and flaps were retracted and to extend either one of them pretty much within 3 seconds of knowing something was wrong. The CAWS that would have told him to do that malfunctioned and thus the pilot had no idea what was going on.


The total amount of time that the airplane was flyable was 14 seconds. Even if the crew had recognized that the increasing airspeed was inconsistent with a decreasing performance windshear, the short period of time for them to completely and accurately assess what was happening to the airplane was probably inadequate. The combination of airplane rolling, the stall
warnings, and the possibility of imminent ground contact were probably powerful enough stimuli to focus the crew’ s attention completely on the factors relevant to avoiding ground contact and to
maintaining airplane control and did not allow them sufficient flexibility to expand their attention to include all the factors that were required to more completely assess the airplane’ s condition.

Page 66, first paragraph.

If you read the transcript of the intra-cockpit communications starting on page 124, you can tell that they had no idea what was going on.

Like you said, the airplane was going down anyway. Even if the light poles weren't there, it would have come down in the same area.


Once again, the official reason why Flight 255 crashed was a combination of pilot error and hardware malfunction.

1. The pilot did not extend his flaps and slats.
2. The flight crew did not go through the taxi checklist which would have lead them to discover the slats and flaps weren't extended.
3. The CAWS that would have told him of his mistake while in the air malfunctioned and did not warn the pilot of his configuration.
4. Not knowing what was going on, the pilot reacted to correct for what he thought was a microburst (which never was the case).

[edit on 19-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 


Nola....all due respect.....what you know is nada, zero, zilch!!

The airplane (in the case of AAL77) did not fly down a 'freeway'....it was a major thoroughfare, here in Arlington, called Columbia Pike.

What's more, after completing the turn around, and lining up, the airplane did not fly at 50 feet or 100 feet or even 300 feet the whole way in!!!

If you have ever flown an airplane you'd know how you can fly low-level, avoiding obstacles, and aim low at the target (a building, if you're suicidal) in just the last few seconds....it's in your windshield! For cripes sake!!!

Could you steer your car into a concrete barrier on the highway?? If you were suicidal, I'll bet you'd have no problem.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


Thanks, HLR, for reminding us of the CAWS acronym.....I haven't been in the MD-80 for over ten years....(actually, hate the airplane....it flies pretty nicely, but the MickeyD blue made me sick....and the A/C packs were terrible, on the ground....the cockpit was too cramped, and....it was basically just a glorified DC-9, with better engines and autoflight system....and CAWS got very, very annoying after a while....what did we call it? Oh, yeah! "bitching betty"

added...oh, and the B757/767 paid a lot better!!!

[edit on 5/19/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
The results were that it still crashed at the real life impact zone.

Once again, the official reason why Flight 255 crashed was a combination of pilot error and hardware malfunction.


But hitting the pole is what brought the plane down.




top topics



 
1
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join