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: 47
1
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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!!!


Sounds to me like someone is upset because i posted evidence to support my point that the wing was sheared off.

But if you want i can still post more infomation about the wing being sheared off and other planes that had wings sheared off.


[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No! I am not upset with your so-called 'evidence' because it has nothing whatsoever to do with American Airlines 77 and the Pentagon!!!

For the last time, get this through your head....a PIECE of the Northest MD-80 broke off, just prior to the fatal impact, which was inevitable.

BTW, the MD-80 wing has what is called a 'surge tank' built into the last four feet of the wing tip. The wing is sectioned, as built. The ailerons are INBOARD of this section of the wing! (Since the wing was stalled, the ailerons were ineffective at any rate!)

What I AM upset about, is your continual use of 'snippets' to cloud and confuse. You do your 'truthers' movement a grave disservice.

Play fair, or leave the sandbox please.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No! I am not upset with your so-called 'evidence' because it has nothing whatsoever to do with American Airlines 77 and the Pentagon!!!.


Well if you would read my post you would know that we were talking about if the wings of flight 77 would have been several damaged or sheared from hitting 5 poles, since the wing of flight 255 were sheaared from hitting 1 pole. Also the fact that wings usually shear off when hitting an obsticle like a wall.

So why is there no photos of wing debris around the poles or at the wall of the Pentagon?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So why is there no photos of wing debris around the poles or at the wall of the Pentagon?


If you had read my post with a 737, that's a more reasonable comparison to the 757 than your MD-80, you'll see that it is possible for a wing to strike multiple light poles and still remain intact.

My pictures clearly show 3 poles that were hit and the resulting damage to the 737's wing and engine. No large sections were sheared off.

But yes, some debris might be present. Maybe it was just the angle the cameramen took the pictures at? The debris might not have been that large either.

And it depends on where on the wing the light poles struck. Obviously, the closer inboard, the less overall damage, as the wing structure is very rigid there.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 





posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
But yes, some debris might be present. Maybe it was just the angle the cameramen took the pictures at? The debris might not have been that large either.


You forget it was a crime scene, the FBI took over 40,000 photos of the crime scenes plus confiscated all military and civilain film and video.

So again why have we not seen any photos of wing debris at the Pentagon.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 123space


Yes i have seen this video a lot over the years. Whats your point?



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You forget it was a crime scene, the FBI took over 40,000 photos of the crime scenes plus confiscated all military and civilain film and video.

So again why have we not seen any photos of wing debris at the Pentagon.


It's probably locked away with the other pieces of evidence that you say the FBI hasn't released yet.

I'm willing to bet good money that a some point in the future, they'll release them for the historians' sake. Just to make history more accurate.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
It's probably locked away with the other pieces of evidence that you say the FBI hasn't released yet.


Well its not just me saying it. Look for yourself, you will not find any actual photos of videos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. You will also not find any photos of wings or wing debris.

You will not find any official reports matching parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. In fact you will find where the FAA has refused to release serial numbers for the parts of the 9/11 planes.



[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well its not just me saying it. Look for yourself, you will not find any actual photos of videos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. You will also not find any photos of wings or wing debris.
[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I already posted video released by the Pentagon from its security tapes showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Stop the lies Roger, we're over you.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I already posted video released by the Pentagon from its security tapes showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Stop the lies Roger, we're over you.


If you see a 757 in that video its in your mind.

Please show me a frame of that video that actaully shows the 757 of flight 77.

If you cannot show a frame of the video showing a 757 then we will know who the real liar is.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well its not just me saying it. Look for yourself, you will not find any actual photos of videos of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. You will also not find any photos of wings or wing debris.

You will not find any official reports matching parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. In fact you will find where the FAA has refused to release serial numbers for the parts of the 9/11 planes.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Just because you haven't found it doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't take the pictures and make the reports. As the public, we only have limited search abilities.

We can file FOIA requests, but most likely, they'll conveniently end up in a pile of backlogs with a completion time of years or just plain lost.

If we had a contact in the FBI or FAA that would risk leaking information (which any sane person would definitely not do), we'd know.

I will admit that it is puzzling why they didn't release at least those pictures and reports.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I already posted video released by the Pentagon from its security tapes showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Stop the lies Roger, we're over you.


If you see a 757 in that video its in your mind.

Please show me a frame of that video that actaully shows the 757 of flight 77.

If you cannot show a frame of the video showing a 757 then we will know who the real liar is.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


I showed you a whole video, not just a single frame, but hundreds of frames. It's hardly my fault that you're blind in addition to being a liar. Maybe you could take the video to some of the trained analysts at the NSA who could help you out. Oh right, you don't actually work for the NSA, so you can't, which is fine because the NSA doesn't cover that kind of thing anyhow.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I showed you a whole video, not just a single frame, but hundreds of frames.


Please show me a frame of that video that actaully shows the 757 of flight 77.

If you cannot show a frame of the video showing a 757 then we will know who the real liar is.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Is this Negative Proof and Burden of Proof fallacy again? If I can't produce evidence that meets your unreasonable burden, it proves it didn't hit the Pentagon? My brain hurts...

[edit on 21-5-2008 by _Del_]



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
If I can't produce evidence that meets your unreasonable burden, it proves it didn't hit the Pentagon? My brain hurts...


Its really very simple.

There are no photos or videos (released) that actually shows flight 77 hitting the Penatgon.

The only thing released is a secrurity video that only shows a blur. It does not show a 757.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, please stop making false statements, everyone can read what I wrote regarding NWA255...your statement that the 'wing sheared off' is patently incorrect. A short section of the tip broke, and I already explained why and also why it had NO bearing on the ineveitable crash of that airplane. Please do me the honor of reading what I so painstakingly write for you.

I also ponted out the incredible speed of AAL77 and the amount of kinetic energy forces that carry any components right along....it doesn't stop and bounce back like in a cartoon!!

The energies involved would also tend to cause an 'accordian effect' in some cases, aand simply pulverize other components. The chaotic nature of these forces account for a few large sections that were recognizable, namely a chunk of outer fuselage with a portion of the airline name still visible.

You should look at some other fairly high-speed accidents (though nothing compares to the pentagon)...look especially for CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) since those will be reasonably high-speed, and see how much engine remains intact. There was Ameican in Ecuador some years back (poor sit awareness on the part of the pilots, at night, in Mountainous Terrain). There was the tragic AAL587, in Queens, NY, Nov 2001. Thugh not high-speed, you can see just how much breaking up there is at about 260K.

Back to that engine sim....it's cute, but unltimately useless....which is probably why this thread seems to keep coming back to lightpoles?

And, please...continue to be polite, but stop taking quotes from me and changing the meaning, it is bad ATS form....



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, please stop making false statements, everyone can read what I wrote regarding NWA255...your statement that the 'wing sheared off' is patently incorrect.


I did not post a false statement. As posted this quote is from a leagl case which states the wing was sheared.


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.




[edit on 22-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....this is the last time I will be baited by you.....YOUR OWN cited source just said it 'sheared off a part of the wing'....which is what I have been saying all along!

Of course, you truncated the rest of the paragraph.....as is your wont. Your M.O.

ONE last time....I have seen, several times, the full re-creation of the NWA255 accident...itis chilling, to an airline pilot....perhaps not so much to you, but to me....shakes me to my core.

The strinknig of one light pole, or lampost, or light standard....any meager aluminum pole.....did NOT cause the NWA255 to crash!!!!!!!!

I cannot emphasize this enough, not sure how to explain it any better than I have already.

ULTIMA, when an airplane stalls, it tends to fall off to one side, or the other...not a Cessna 150, but a swept-wing jet will have forces, because of the nature of the aerodynamics inherent in a swept-wing airplane!

There is a way to recover from a stall....more airspeed. (or, more correctly, reducing the AoA)

Airspeed can be increased, from a stall condition, by added thrust. That takes time, since drag is always present...the fastest way to recover from a stall, that is, increase airspeed, is to trade altitude for airspeed.....but when the airplane just lifted off, is in the wrong wing config....and is already in a stall condition.....there is no altitude to trade for airspeed!!!!!

I am trying, so far to no avail, to explain to you....those pilots made a mistake....and the built-in warnings (CAWS) that they relied upon, from past experience, failed them....their first indication should have been the fact that the AutoThrottles would not engage....but, mindset of a pilot....well, it's something we will write up once we get to Phoenix.....keep going!

Reason the A/T would not engage?? The A/T system recognized the config problem....but, two systems, inter-related, thru the ground-sensing logic....

And CAWS did not alert....never made clear why, it just didn't....until after lift-off....when, in the MD-80, there are switches based on nose-gear switch posiition, and main gear sensing switches....to determine ground/flight for the logic of the warning systems.....that's why, as soon as they lifted off...the 'Stall, Stall. Stall' CAWS sounded all the way to impact...

ULTIMA....please read the full NTSB report...I have, and I have seen a computer re-creation of this particular accident....it is chilling, but that very fact was used, in training sessions, to help educate other airline pilots to not repeat that mistake....the lax checklist discipline.....

AND....airline safety has continually improved, in the last two decades...I believe 2007 had NO fatal commercial US accidents.....

The improvements stem from an innovative technique, starting with United Airlines...called 'Cockpit Resource Management', or CRM

It was the first attempt to break away from the 'Captain is always correct' mindset. See, the Captain is always 'responsible'.....but if the Captain doesn't use all of the resources at hand, then that is irresponsible....I call it the 'Captain Picard' approach to managing a flight deck.....



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....this is the last time I will be baited by you.....YOUR OWN cited source just said it 'sheared off a part of the wing'....which is what I have been saying all along!


Then we agree on the wing being sheared off from hitting a light pole(which is what i originally stated).


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.



[edit on 22-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join