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: 51
1
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is nonsense. It's a fun thing to play with, but it has no bearing what-so-ever with where this thread has veered to....


Thats funny since you agreed the thrust and fuel gauges were correct.

It does a good job of showning how much thrust would be coming out of the engine at the speed and height that flgith 77 was supposidly at.





[edit on 27-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Well at least I have the southern accent - south of the equator that is


At the recorded airspeed, that info places the plane at least 1/2 mile or more away from the Pentagon at the time of the final intact subframe so the altitude discrepancy is not as damning as first proposed.

No messing with the data is required and the NTSB has signed off on its authenticity as they were the authorities that opened the recorder and extracted the memory for downloading. The chain of custody was maintained from the locating of the recorder, through the downloading/decompression of data right up to the handing over of the evidence to the FBI.

How much more proof is needed that AA77 did, in fact, strike the Pentagon?




[edit on 28/5/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is nonsense. It's a fun thing to play with, but it has no bearing what-so-ever with where this thread has veered to....


Thats funny since you agreed the thrust and fuel gauges were correct.

It does a good job of showning how much thrust would be coming out of the engine at the speed and height that flight 77 was supposidly at.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
How much more proof is needed that AA77 did, in fact, strike the Pentagon?


Didn't i post a report about black boxes being switched before ?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, you posted one instance of 'black boxes' as you say, being switched. You were referring to a crash of a demonstrated A-320, back when Airbus was a fledgling company, trying to compete with Boeing and sell their airplanes.

How was the DFDR switched, exactly??? How was the data 'transcribed'??

It's all digital.....there are chains of custody, at least in the USA (not sure about France.....but I think they are just as competent).

Really, try some more study, I'd like to hear from you after you learn more.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Really, try some more study, I'd like to hear from you after you learn more.


Please do not try to talk down to me. It only makes you look immature.

I already stated about the black boxes being compromised, the quotes from a experienced pilot.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not talking down to you, ULTIMA. I'm in my 50s, so I'm hardly immature!!!

I've had a pretty thick skin, so far.....your arrows haven't penetrated very often. I've let you slide, for the most part, even when you "select" quotes, out of context, and 'spin' them to suit your desires. I've noticed it before, and mentioned it. Not evilly, but politely asking you to stop doing so.

My life partner's father just came to visit DC this last weekend (Memorial Day weekend)....this guy has the beginnings of senile dementia, it seems. He claimed to have visited the White House, and to have been personally served a tuna fish sandwich made by Laura Bush.

I wish to not draw any parallels here....but there must always remain the possiblity that a stranger, on an internet forum, may not seem who he/she claims......

This applies to me, as well, of course. I just hope that others will see what I post, and judge for themselves.

On a different point........I have proposed a simulator experiment....well, first postulated by John Lear, but he didn't follow through....to hopefully re-create the WTC building attacks, in a simulator. My personal life is getting in the way, currently....meaning, I am going on Holiday this summer...in July. When I get home from my cruise, I will re-focus on this experiment.

JL has asserted that even he, with all of his experience, could not fly an airplane into a target such as the WTC. I found that assertion laughable....no disrespect to JL, but how in the heck could he say such a thing? I've flown simulators.....and it's very easy to hit a 'building', in a simulation.

I'd like to use a very realistic simulator.....and as I've noted, the motion will likely be turned off, lest we damage the Sim...but if it has a good daylight visual.....and if a skyscraper can be programmed in....(the WTC Towers may have been deleted from current databases....)

There are other skyscrapers, around the World...we can still re-create the 'test'.....



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I wish to not draw any parallels here....but there must always remain the possiblity that a stranger, on an internet forum, may not seem who he/she claims......


Well problem is i have posted documents to support my background and experince but people still did not want to admit to much becasue then they might have to admit that i do know what i am talking about and may be correct about some of the things i post.

Heaven forbid that a believer would have to admit the official story might not be correct. that somehting else might have happened other then what they have been told.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


heaven forbid that I might actually know what I'm talking about!!!!

Oh....but I'm still sane.....big difference.....



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
heaven forbid that I might actually know what I'm talking about!!!!


Well i happen to know what i am talking abot also.

By the way, for the record. Aren't pilots trained to go by what thier instruments tell them? Most of them do not really know the innner workings of their aircraft?

I mean most pilots i have been around do not know the inner workings of their aircraft, but once in a while you will find 1 or 2 that ask questions and want to learn.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I've not only flown into a building. I have flown through a hangar in a T-38 simulator on hydraulics. The IP flew through it several times without hitting the edges. I was less adept.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
By the way, for the record. Aren't pilots trained to go by what thier instruments tell them? Most of them do not really know the innner workings of their aircraft?

I mean most pilots i have been around do not know the inner workings of their aircraft, but once in a while you will find 1 or 2 that ask questions and want to learn.


Even if he knew nothing about the inner workings of the a/c (which we have seen to not be the case), he clearly knows about its operation. Stop trolling. Your wrench monkey bias is showing...



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Oh, ULTIMA!!!!

You just showed your incredible igorance!!!!

You wish to tangle with me? You wish to claim that a pilot doesn't know his airplane????


You just jumped the wrong shark, dude!!


What in the hell gives you the right to claim that a pilot does not know his airplane!!!!!!

You....a person who has no knowledge, except as a grunt in the Air Force, per your claims....and your follow-on claims of being employed by the NSA.....but you have nothing to substantiate those claims.....you DARE to impugn what I know????

You have less in your little finger, than what I know about commercial aviation!!!! So don't even wish to start to tangle with me.....you can read your nonsense, online.....but you have no practical experience. Practical means, 'hands-on'.....



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Let's be very clear here guys: disagreeing with another member is not against terms and condition. Whoever is wrong in this little discussion is entitled to their opinion, and is under no obligation to see reason, so long as they do not knowingly attempt to perpetrate a hoax, which is not a problem here in this thread.

I strongly suggest that everyone take a deep breath and think very carefully about their manners before posting, because thinking that somebody is wrong does not give you the right to insult them.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


hmmmmm....thanks, Del...

You said it better than I could.....maybe I got too angry, and went too far.

If it offended anyone, then I apologize.

I will not back down, however, from my post. I made my point, it may have sounded harsh....not sure if it broke the T&Cs...I stated my opinion, I didn't directly insult any other ATS member....did I???

Did I use banned language?? Did I specifically call another ATS member a bad name?

From my point of view, I defended myself, from another's insult....if I am not allowed to defend myself, in strong terms, then what the heck is ATS about anyway???

OK....last rant, it's over.....



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So don't even wish to start to tangle with me.....you can read your nonsense, online.....but you have no practical experience. Practical means, 'hands-on'.....


Then tell me, how many pilots service thier aircraft?

How many pilots change a tire on thier aircraft?

How many pilots do any work on thier aircraft?

If I ask you a question about the inner workings of an aircraft do you think you could answer it ? If i ask about a certain part or the way a system works do you think you coulds anser it ?




[edit on 29-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
not sure if it broke the T&Cs...I stated my opinion, I didn't directly insult any other ATS member....did I???


I'll grant that the crime of the century has not been committed by you or anyone else in this thread. But let's not call eachother ignorant, at least not explicitly. Let the measure of ignorance be when one side has proven their case conclusively and the other refuses to acknowledge it- in which case the word ignorance need never be spoken; it will speak for itself.

So let's continue to enjoy a lively discussion, and each reader may decide for themselves what the truth is.

And of course, if a verdict is desired, The Debate forum is like 7-11: we ain't always doing business, but we're always open. I'd be more than happy to organize a judging panel and let any two members or two teams of members have at eachother, on the merits of the evidence.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Pilots almost always know every little TINCY bit about there aircraft, in and out. Otherwise, if they have a problem, they're good as dead. Personally, I know of many pilots who actually have maintained the aircraft they fly, and yes, that includes jets.


If you have any questions about aircraft then ask away.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, when I was much younger I could change the wheels on a Cessna....pack the bearings with grease, and re-install, all under the supervision of a licensed mechanic. Remove and replace a cowling...can't re-build an engine, though. No riveting either, without a license.

If you wish to ask me a specific question about a B757 or B767, go ahead.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

JL has asserted that even he, with all of his experience, could not fly an airplane into a target such as the WTC. I found that assertion laughable....no disrespect to JL, but how in the heck could he say such a thing? I've flown simulators.....and it's very easy to hit a 'building', in a simulation.




This has never made much sense to me either. Kinda like saying a pilot couldn't fly into a runway at 500 mph.

If you scale it down by a factor of 10, JL said that no one could drive a car at 50 mph between 2 traffic cones set 20' apart.

Even if we double the difficulty to try and account for less maneuverability in a jet, and set the cones at 10', it gets harder, but not too difficult.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join