Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Unlikelu that a wing will just snap off when hitting a light pole, given the construction above. The aircrafts entire weight, plus downforce from the tail is resting on that centre section, that's why it's so likely that it is going to snap at the root in an actual crash.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


www.youtube.com...

Would you say the power lines brought the plane down?

[edit on 20/5/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But hitting the pole is what brought the plane down.

Nope. Going into a deep stall 50 feet off the ground's what brought the airplane down. The pole just happened to be there. Like you admitted, the airplane was going down anyway.

The airplane hit two cars as well. Did they bring it down?

[edit on 20-5-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
The pole just happened to be there. Like you admitted, the airplane was going down anyway.

Last post on this issue, my statement agress with the reports.

Yes the airplane was going down, BUT hitting the pole is was caused it to lose a section of wing and crash in to the building.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
The pole just happened to be there. Like you admitted, the airplane was going down anyway.

Last post on this issue, my statement agress with the reports.

Yes the airplane was going down, BUT hitting the pole is was caused it to lose a section of wing and crash in to the building.

Heh, you've been saying last post for quite a while.

The full report completely agrees with what everyone else has been saying. That the pole was not the cause of the crash, but rather the retracted slats and flaps being what brought the airplane down. I've even posted evidence that the reports states that specifically in its findings.

As I and the report have stated, a simulation based on the data from the flight recorder was performed with the same conditions (flaps and slats retracted and the pilot reactionary inputs), and it concluded that the airplane would have come down in the same spot regardless if it hit the light pole or not.

I will state it again from the report:

The light pole struck by flight 255 was 2.2 feet higher than the 40-foot height that was approved in the FAA’s aeronautical study. However, the 42.2-foot-high pole did not penetrate any civil airport imaginary surface, and the impact point on the pole was 37 feet agl. Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the pole’s additional height was not a causal factor.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


NO!!!! NO, NO, NO!!!

Doesn't matter how hard you wish it to be true, the striking of the light pole DID NOT CAUSE NW255 to subsequently crash into the building!!!!

The jet was going to hit the building, it was out of control!!!

The light pole was NOT a causal factor in the accident!! You claim to do research, go do research!!

I have watched the computer-generated re-creation of this accident many times....along with a 'sound-track' provided by actors reading from the official transcript....and the CAWS sounds inputted as well, to give a true idea to pilots who actually flew the derned thing, sitting in a classroom, to understand how the crew missed items on the checklist, during taxi....the confusion because of the last-minute runway change, and taxi directions....and they missed the 'flaps/slats' challenge, along with the trim setting.

It was a wake-up call to other pilots, to not fall into the trap of distraction, when it comes to checklists. AND, to not rely on the built-in safety systems, which can fail, or not perform as you expect!!!

ULTIMA, you like to state something to support your case....but you are wrong, wrong, wrong!!

The airplane was not configured for take-off...threfore, the speed used at rotation was below the 'clean' stall speed for that weight....until I get the full report, I can't give exact speeds...but Minimum Clean Maneuvering, at full gross weight, of an MD-80, is close to 200K. I guarantee you the rotate speed was far less....the airplane could not sustain flight at that speed, with the wing config and gross weight! That is why it banked, from right to left, as it was in the stall condition, and the pilots fought for control...they hadn't enough time to realize, even though the CAWS was saying 'Stall, Stall, Stall'....the whole time....

Only, only....if someone had the presence of mind to go to full throttle and simultaneously extend the slats (the handle is gated....the slats are the first position, then it requires another two-fingered method to continue to the next flap selection...called it 'dial-a-flap')

IF....mnaybe they were fast, they would have regained control....but, from the moment they started the take-off roll....(BTW, the A/T would not engage....because of the config.....but they didn't see that as enough of a warning to dis-continue the take-off)

Please, read the full report.....

Quoted for truth from the NTSB that the plane hititng the pole caused the plane to crash into the building.

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.

Quoted for truth about wing being sheared.

The first officer of the Northwest airplane parked on taxiway “A” testified that flight 255 was intact until the left wing struck the light pole in the auto rental car lot. After the wing struck the pole, he saw what appeared to be “a four- to five-foot chunk of the wing section . .‘I fall from the airplane.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ok. So where in that quote does it say that the light pole was what brought the airplane down? All it says is the order of things the airplane struck on the way down. Just as you admitted, it was going down anyway.

Just as the report stated, it was going to crash into that building regardless of it hitting the light pole.

And your changing your stance from 18 foot section to 4-5 foot?

[edit on 20-5-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


So what?!?

You said the light pole 'sheared off the wing, causing the crash'

the airplane was nearly inverted at the time, and continuing to roll to the left....it's fate was sealed.

then, you say....well of course, an airplane with wing-mounted engines has a stronger wing....and the B757 has, I hope you won't deny, wing-mounted engines.

Finally....under normal situations (that is, not in an already stalled condition, and just a second from impact) an airplane, even an MD-80m can continue to fly, even if 'foru or five' feet of the wingtip are missing!!!

Give this up, you don't have enough experience in real commercial jets to understand!!!

People should not be allowed to 'cherry-pick' only those items that seem to bolster their claims....it is dishonest.

Besides.....I just looked.....this entire thread is not about NW255, though it came into discussion as relevant to AAL77....only in the case of 'light poles'.

The original intent of the OP was to look at a 'Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes'

OK....that entire title is suspect from the outset....but we have let the discussion veer way off the rails!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
People should not be allowed to 'cherry-pick' only those items that seem to bolster their claims....it is dishonest.

I completley agree with that statment. Too bad you believers do not practice what you preach.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I completely agree with you. We've gone completely off-course once again. But I guess that's the nature of forums, unfortunately. We become passionate about a discussion and 20 posts later, we're nowhere near what we were supposed to be discussing.

Oh, and Ultima, the irony, the shear irony.

Originally posted by HLR53K
[Oh, and Ultima, the irony, the shear irony.

Just 1 simple questoin. Please be adult enough to answer.

Did the report state that wing was sheared off as i origianlly stated, YES or NO?

I'd like to volunteer to be Ultima's agent. We could book shows at local comedy clubs; sell books, video, whatever. There's a lot of hilarity here; we just need the proper venue to turn it into profit. Any interested investors can contact me via U2U.

Originally posted by _Del_
I'd like to volunteer to be Ultima's agent. We could book shows at local comedy clubs; sell books, video, whatever.

Thanks very much for yet agian proving that you have to resort to a change in topic instead of haveing an adult discussion.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Just 1 simple questoin. Please be adult enough to answer.

Did the report state that wing was sheared off as i origianlly stated, YES or NO?

Yes.

Did the report explicitely state in the conclusion or results that it was the cause of the crash?
Yes or no?

Originally posted by HLR53K
Did the report explicitely state in the conclusion or results that it was the cause of the crash?
Yes or no?

Well thank you for the honest answer.

No, but it was the cause of the way it crashed.

No the report does not say the wing was sheared off! Its says a section was knocked off the wing. Post me the sentence in the NTSB report that it was sheared off and I will say no more.

Ultima you are misinterpreting facts.

Originally posted by Sway33
No the report does not say the wing was sheared off!

Looks to me like plenty of information on wing being sheared off.

The first officer of the Northwest airplane parked on taxiway “A” testified that flight 255 was intact until the left wing struck the light pole in the auto rental car lot. After the wing struck the pole, he saw what appeared to be “a four- to five-foot chunk of the wing section . .‘I fall from the airplane.

Lets see how much information i can find that say the wing was sheared off.

www.check-six.com...

Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashed during takeoff from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on August 16, 1987. The aircraft was an MD-80 model manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. The plane failed to gain sufficient altitude after takeoff, and struck a lamppost in the lot of a nearby National Car Rental office. The impact sheared off part of the wing, and the plane subsequently crashed into a highway overpass on Middlebelt Road.

www.joegriffith.com...

The following is a discussion of pre-flight negligence in an air crash case. It is an excerpt from the case of In re Air Crash Disaster, 86 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 1996):

Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashed during takeoff from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on August 16, 1987. The aircraft was an MD-80 model manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. The plane failed to gain sufficient altitude after takeoff, and struck a lamppost in the lot of a nearby National Car Rental office. The impact sheared off part of the wing, and the plane subsequently crashed into a highway overpass on Middlebelt Road.

projectdisaster.com...

The light pole sheared off part of the plane’s right wing, crippling it and starting a fuel fire. The doomed aircraft glanced off several other poles and the roof of an Avis Rent-A-Car building before crashing onto Middlebelt.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


I would invite all to see how ULTIMA, once again, 'snipped' a sentence out of another's post, in this cse Sway33, and took it completely out of context, since ULTIMA did not include the second sentence!!!

If that is not an overt example of dishonest, selective 'quote mining' I don't know what is!!

Then, using that tactic, ULTIMA points to other sources to, desperately, it would seem, attempt to cling to the mistaken 'belief' that striking a lampost will cause an airplane to crash. He is taking the 'snippets' from the NWA255 crash in order to equate it to AAL77.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, this is a red-herring. And has nothing to do with the OP...but, like a dog with a bone, he just won't let it go.

In an effort to close this issue of the lamposts and AAL77...the B757 wing at 480K would knock lamposts over like matchsticks because of the kinetic energy encompassed in the airframe.

There is no comparison to an MD-80 which is flying below stall speed, and had already begun a fatal roll-over to inverted, before impacting the lampost and a plit second later, the ground. If there had been no lampost, the outcome would have been the same.

So, the two instances are not even closely related, it's time to drop this line of inquiry, since it is foolishness.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I know what you mean in all regards

Kinetic energy is a very powerful factor which has been vigorously downplayed (even to the point of denial) here in the past. It increases as the square of velocity making the actual mass and material of the moving object less significant as velocity increases in terms of the way it affects a stationary object like a pole or building.

We've probably wandered so far off topic here we won't find the way back.

[edit on 21/5/2008 by Pilgrum]