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.

 

Reheat - Hole in the Ground

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

[11] --------------------------------------------------------------
Debris from the crash has been found up to 8 miles from the crash site, but searchers are concentrating on the crater where most of the remains are located. Papers and other light objects were carried aloft by the explosion after impact of the plane and they were transported by a nine-knot wind. www.post-gazette.com...
[12] --------------------------------------------------------------
Pictures www.vaed.uscourts.gov... www.vaed.uscourts.gov... Live news coverage showing debris www.youtube.com... The hijacker's license bp0.blogger.com...
[13] --------------------------------------------------------------
FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said that the largest piece
of plane recovered was a shred of fuselage skin that
covered four windows -- a piece seven feet long
from a jetliner that was 155 feet long. The
heaviest piece, he said, was a half-ton section
of engine fan.

www.post-gazette.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...
[14] --------------------------------------------------------------
Once he was able to absorb the scene, Miller says, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there. It became like a giant funeral service." As a funeral director, Miller says, he is honored and humbled to preside over what has become essentially an immense cemetery stretching far into the scenic wooded mountain ridge. He considers it the final resting place of 40 national heroes. He saw dust, not bodies.
[15] --------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93 www.ntsb.gov...
[16] --------------------------------------------------------------
THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 Compiled by Andrew Burfield forums.randi.org...
[17] --------------------------------------------------------------
VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash (0:1:15) www.youtube.com...
[18] --------------------------------------------------------------
Phone calls from Flight 93 9/11 Commission folder entitled "Flight 93 Calls - General". 911myths.com...:Team7_Box12_93Calls_General.2.pdf
[19] --------------------------------------------------------------
Flight 93 Radar track i286.photobucket.com...
[20] --------------------------------------------------------------
Crash debris found 8 miles away
www.pittsburghlive.com...
www.pittsburghlive.com...
www.pittsburghlive.com...
[21] --------------------------------------------------------------
Olsen Phone calls discussed
forums.randi.org...


[edit on 28-5-2009 by Reheat]




posted on May, 28 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Let me help you with this weak/dis-info post:

[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
Along with the terrorists right?
The kind of DNA
that can withstand all the 'fire' and melt engine parts?


[2] The hole
Made by what? Proof?

[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
Where are the photos? Proof?

[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
Several anomalies including an auto pilot that does not disengage
with extreme yoke movement. Please view P4T's analysis (again
done by certified professionals that can be verified at FAA.gov....not
some kid with an internet account).

[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
So? What's the point? It breaks apart and doesn't go through
the wall. How does that support your case?


You can't have small pieces breaking up AND digging 165 foot holes in
the ground; and breaking up the Pentagon.

[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
Wow, I have lots of bread in my fridge. Where's the proof?

[7] 1960 Air-to-air collision NYC
And? Point? I saw two dogs going for a walk yesterday in Detroit.

[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
see P4T reference above.

[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders
1,201 bottles of beer.

first responders on video saying they saw nothing. Pictures of the
crash site that show nothing. Some of which arrived before any
authority. Nice...ummm...try


[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
My cars are in storage. Want to see PICTURES?

[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
Yup, that normally happens when an aircraft is shot down, or breaks
up in mid air.

[12] Pictures
Flowers

[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
Normally happens in a shoot down, or mid-air break up. Wait...where
did I read that before?


[14] Coroner Statement
Eye witness VIDEO accounts. By the way, is this the same guy saying
he went to the site and didn't see any bodies?


[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
P4T

[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
Care to narrow that down a bit? Which part specifically should we
debate?

[17] VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash
VIDEO, PICS of eye witnesses proving otherwise supported by lack of
government co-operation to show that their official story holds water.

[18] Phone calls from Flight 93
Proven impossible. Please study RF technology.
I can certainly help you in that department.

[19] Flight 93 Radar track
See discussion about ALT and Speed with respect to "coast mode"

[20] Crash debris found 8 miles away
Already covered above.

[21] Olsen Phone calls discussed
Yes, it was easily debunked. Enjoyed it, along with the experiments
conducted by REAL people with cell phones in aircraft.

Not bad "Mr. Reheat". Out of 21 points, you failed miserably on 20 points.

That's much better than most of your crew at the 'J' however.

The only line that has a chance of debate is 16. Waiting for your reply.
Hopefully it wont be 3 weeks this time. Oh, and please don't reply without
PROOF.


[edit on 28-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Let me help you with this weak/dis-info post:

[1] DNA for all passangers crew found and identified
Along with the terrorists right?
The kind of DNA
that can withstand all the 'fire' and melt engine parts?


Personal incredulity


Originally posted by turbofan
[2] The hole
Made by what? Proof?


Personal incredulity


Originally posted by turbofan
[3] 95% of the airplane recovered in the hole
Where are the photos? Proof?


Personal incredulity


Originally posted by turbofan
[4] Black boxes recovered and analyzed
Several anomalies including an auto pilot that does not disengage
with extreme yoke movement. Please view P4T's analysis (again
done by certified professionals that can be verified at FAA.gov....not
some kid with an internet account).


I didn't know there was any listing at FAA.gov of FDR experts. Would you kindly link that, please.



Originally posted by turbofan
[5] Video of Phanton hitting wall
So? What's the point? It breaks apart and doesn't go through
the wall. How does that support your case?


Personal incredulity and no aircraft accident investigation experience. You are NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT with other than a personal incredulity opinion.


Originally posted by turbofan
You can't have small pieces breaking up AND digging 165 foot holes in
the ground; and breaking up the Pentagon.


False statement on depth of wreckage. Lack of physics knowledge.


Originally posted by turbofan
[6] Lots of Flight 93 links
Wow, I have lots of bread in my fridge. Where's the proof?


It's obvious you looked at none of them.


Originally posted by turbofan
[7] 1960 Air-to-air collision NYC
And? Point? I saw two dogs going for a walk yesterday in Detroit.


Smart Acre comment



[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
[8] Analysis of Flt 93 Balck Boxes
see P4T reference above.


see above for request for FAA link to FDR experts


Originally posted by turbofan
[9] 1,200 investigators and first responders
1,201 bottles of beer.

first responders on video saying they saw nothing. Pictures of the
crash site that show nothing. Some of which arrived before any
authority. Nice...ummm...try


Personal incredulity


Originally posted by turbofan
[10] Remains of aircraft in storage.
My cars are in storage. Want to see PICTURES?


Personal incredulity


Originally posted by turbofan
[11] Papers & light objects found up to 8 miles from the crash
Yup, that normally happens when an aircraft is shot down, or breaks
up in mid air.


It can also happens when the winds at 1000' are 297 degrees at 24 knots. Do I need to explain how stuff rises when there is an explosion and fire or didn't you learn that at your 6th Birthday Celebration, last week.


Originally posted by turbofan
[12] Pictures
Flowers


This is a very stupid and disingenuous response.


Originally posted by turbofan
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
Normally happens in a shoot down, or mid-air break up. Wait...where
did I read that before?


Wrong answer. For a shoot down or a mid-air break up there will be numerous large pieces.


Originally posted by turbofan
[14] Coroner Statement
Eye witness VIDEO accounts. By the way, is this the same guy saying
he went to the site and didn't see any bodies?


Ignorant and uneducated response. Of course, there were no bodies. Are you smart enough to figure out why?


Originally posted by turbofan
[15] Flight Data Recorder data and WTC data for Flt 93
P4T


See above for request for the link to an FAA database of FDR experts.


Originally posted by turbofan
[16] THE NORAD RESPONSE TO 9/11 COmplete timing and FAA info
Care to narrow that down a bit? Which part specifically should we
debate?


Who said I was really interested in debating anything with you. After these silly and insulting responses I am not interested.


Originally posted by turbofan
[17] VIDEO: Eyewitnesses to Flt93 crash
VIDEO, PICS of eye witnesses proving otherwise supported by lack of
government co-operation to show that their official story holds water.


So, now we get the white UAV, which was silent, no rivets, and flew under telephone wires. Those witnesses?


Originally posted by turbofan
[18] Phone calls from Flight 93
Proven impossible. Please study RF technology.
I can certainly help you in that department.


WRONG ANSWER.


Originally posted by turbofan
[19] Flight 93 Radar track
See discussion about ALT and Speed with respect to "coast mode"


The "Coast mode" of radar has nothing to do with anything related to UA 93


Originally posted by turbofan
[20] Crash debris found 8 miles away
Already covered above.


Referring to a personal incredulity


Originally posted by turbofan
[21] Olsen Phone calls discussed
Yes, it was easily debunked. Enjoyed it, along with the experiments
conducted by REAL people with cell phones in aircraft.


Invalid experiment and no consideration give to Air Phones.


Originally posted by turbofan
Not bad "Mr. Reheat". Out of 21 points, you failed miserably on 20 points.


Unsubstantiated personal opinion.

The only way I will remain in this thread to make even one more post is if you post a sincere apology for all of the insulting and disingenuous comments. I won't tolerate it, period and neither would anyone else.

How in the Hades do you expect anyone to debate with you with so much personal incredulity coming out of your head? You're not qualified to have a valid respected opinion on most of these issues.

It's no wonder Ryan Mackey won't debate with you. And if this type of act continues for even one more post neither will I.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Reheat]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
A bomb was drop from a fighter plane that created that hole in the ground and that is as believable as the government story. There was no airplane at the crash scene no PROOF nothing.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
I see "Mr. Reheat" has assured us with proof using one line remarks
that UA93 is buried in the ground, and the aliens scooped up 95% of
the debris and locked it up at Iron Mountain.


"He" also claims to have an edge in RF technology over myself and
several other engineers who actually tested cell phones at altitude.

Now he's not interested in a discussion as I'm sure he knows we don't
care to hear from kids with internet accounts trying to play Mr. Know-it-all
over credible scientists, engineers, architects pilots and accident investigators.

Have fun with your keyboard "Mr. Reheat". I'll continue to watch real
experts spread the news via internet, radio, news paper and television
media.

Oh...and once you get that peer reviewed article posted to counter the
claims of nine scientists, let me know. K?


Until then, keep finding excuses for missing FDR data. I'm sure Tweety
bird, and Big bird can help you sort out the bird strike for AA77



[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Engines do not rust. The internals are usually a grey matte. I suspect for pointing out the facts I will get a reply like this.



You can say with a straight face that a jumbo jet crashed in this place?

The dis-info material your handler is teaching you is getting lamer by the day!


Because obviously anyone who disagrees is a disinfo agent.

Thanks MajesticJax! So engine rust? Or does the fact that 9/11 is a conspiracy means we can just make # off the top of our head?



[edit on 29/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


I'm pretty sure everyone knows all that. There were some posters who wanted your expert opinion based upon some questions they posted that you didn't answer in this latest post. Anyone could have copied and pasted the list you posted. That is not what they wanted. They wanted your expert opinion.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'd love an expert opinion on how a smoke cloud doesn't drift away
with 24 knot winds at 1000 feet, but 'plane parts' do?


Do these parts suspend themselves in mid-air for several minutes to get
carried away?

I guess it's possible; every other law of physics was broken that day
according to our expert Mr. Reheat!

What goes up, must come down...except on 9/11 when plane parts
hold their altitude at 1000 feet and get blown away by 24 knot winds!


Have a look at the pics Mr. Reheat and explain how/why the smoke cloud
rises vertical without any change in direction from the wind.

Also compare the two photos of a REAL plane crash and notice how black
the smoke is, along with the continuous billow of smoke. THis indicates
there is fuel burning for a duration longer than a couple of seconds:

aviation-safety.net...

Now, the Shanksville magic smoke cloud which puffs up and leaves a
narrow vertical tail :

www.uky.edu...

Eye luv gowing tew skewl with anonumuss enternit egspurts!

[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Acres of debris and garbage around the crash zone but not one person saw a body bag or plane pulled from this 'Hole'.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
[13] Largest peice of Flt 93 was half a ton
Normally happens in a shoot down, or mid-air break up. Wait...where
did I read that before?


This one just *screams* out for a correction.

"Normally happens in a shoot down"? "Normally"? You are versed (well or otherwise) in the aerodynamics of what "normally" happens in an air-to-air shootdown?

While I would enjoy hearing a demonstration of that expertise, I doubt it would be forthcoming

Any idea what an AIM-9 Sidewinder's 20 lb warhead would do to a 250,000 lb 757?

OR what a AIM-120 AMRAAM missile's 50 lb warhead would do to a 250,000 lb aircraft?

Those are the two missiles that could have conceivably been used since any aircraft flying that day were of an Air Force- flavor (i.e. ANG or Air Force).

Air to air missiles are designed to bring down a relatively compact tactical aircraft. Their blast-frag or blast-annular warheads throw out an annular ring of titanium or other dense material, knowing that any impact at that speed with a tactical military aircraft will usually result in some hydraulic or fuel line be severed or some other critical system damaged.

Examples: The DHL incident at Baghdad - a Strela SA-7 (heatseeker, as a matter of fact) didn't track on an engine, but rather impacted the port wingtip. That warhead was only 2.5 lbs, but it messed up hydraulic and fuel lines to the point the aircrew had to use differential thrust to control the aircraft.

KAL 007, shot down by the Soviets in the early 80's, was hit by 2 air to air misilles (proximity fused) and continued to fly for an additional 2+ minutes in a gradual descent before either crashing or making a water landing. The Anab missiles fired by the SU-15 had a big warhead, over 80 lb in each of the 2 missiles, and that STILL didn't get an airborne kill on the 757.

A 20 lb Sidewinder warhead or the 50 lb AMRAAM will screw up one of those big GE or RR turbofans to be sure. The AMRAAM would do some damage to the side of the fuselage or wherever it would impact (depending on what radar mode the missile is tracking in), but it is not going to render the aircraft into pieces such that the "largest piece is half a ton".

Even working the dynamics of the event, if UA93 was tooling along at 1000 or 2000 feet, 500-whatever knots, a Sidewinder blowing up an engine will cause problems, but those aircraft (as part of their design and certification for Extended Twin Engine Operations (ETOPS) and overwater operations) fly very well on one engine. Would a sidewinder warhead detonation cause severe hydraulic loss or some other control ability problem? Possibly, but nothing would cause the instantaneous destruction of the aircraft to the point that the single largest piece would be a half-ton.

And what happens if and when the aircraft breaks up - either from aerodynamic forces or that 20 or 50 lb warhead magically hits a "sweet spot" and disintegrates the aircraft? Each and every piece, lacking thrust, will immediately begin to achieve terminal velocity. At the altitude the 757 was, if that scenario happened wreckage would be vast and spread over a much, much, much larger area than what was found and multiple...let me repeat that....MULTIPLE large pieces would remain since impact with the ground at terminal velocity (and I know terminal velocity related to the density, size and weight of the object in question) is not at a speed sufficient to render aircraft wreckage into minute, small pieces.

No, the only sort of accident that could have caused that debris would have been a controlled, high-speed dive into the ground at something near or approaching a 90 degree angle. I know ruling out the alternatives (missile shoot, for example) causes you CIT and PfT boys heartburn, but so be it.

I think you need to go back and get just a *tad* smarter on what is "normal" in an air to air shootdown, especially when a 250,000 lb 757 and 20 or 50 lb warheads are involved



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Well Treb, let me give you one scenario (unlike yourself with the cab thread):

Missile hits plane at altitude.

Expansion of gasses, explosive pressure, shockwaves, etc. all contribute
to breaking up the aircraft.

Aircraft breaks up into pieces in mid air. Those pieces have different
mass, momentum, direction/explosive vectors.

Separate pieces fall from thousands of feet over an 8 mile debris field.

Small pieces float down, moderate size pieces crash down, large pieces
crash into the ground and break apart further.

None of the pieces bury themselves 165 feet into the ground.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Well Treb, let me give you one scenario (unlike yourself with the cab thread):

Missile hits plane at altitude.

Expansion of gasses, explosive pressure, shockwaves, etc. all contribute
to breaking up the aircraft.


Well, Turbo...you must not have read my entire post. I'll ask again:

Where is a 20 lb or a 50 lb warhead going to get a significant amount of "gas expansion" and "explosive pressure" and "shockwaves" to break up the 125-ton 757 aircraft? I provided 2 examples of aircraft that were hit by missiles and nothing of the sort that you "claim" would happen happened? - you ignored that part of the post, I suppose.

I don't know what you do up there north of the border aside from filming race cars, but its obvious you know nothing about tactical air-to-air missiles and what they are designed to do to an aircraft.

Go re-read the other post. Re-read about the SA-7 IR-guided missile that didn't bring down the aircraft. Re-read the KAL 747 that did not suffer a catastrophic break up when hit by missiles with warheads nearly twice the size of the largest ANG or AF missiles that could have hit UA93?

This is a typical PfT response. Fling out BS with lots of condescension and sarcasm - doesn't matter how far from the truth you are. Hide ignorance behind lots of frantic digital gesticulating.

The air to air missiles that could have been used *do not have the explosive capability* - let me say that again - The air to air missiles that could have been used *do not have the explosive capability* to accomplish what you say they could accomplish.

Send someone else to finish this conversation, PfT. Geez.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Wrong again, as usual. I did read your reply, and here are a few links
for your reading pleasure.

It seems you are out of date on your missile technology (which is not
surprising). Here are some of the latest models used to date (and pre 2001):

AIM 9X
www.designation-systems.net...
www.youtube.com...

AIM 120

www.youtube.com...



Links

www.designation-systems.net...

www.globalsecurity.org...



Also note you are comparing a fighter jet which is designed to withstand
missile strikes, uses special fuel to resist explosion and has less fuel on
board. Futhermore, the fuel tanks are not in the wings of fighter jets.

Most of the weight in central to the fuselage to allow agile flight. You will
notice that when a wing is clipped, or tail section is clipped on a fighter,
there is little damage, and/or flame. You will see several instances of
"kills" in my links.

Now imagine those missiles igniting all that fuel in a commercial airliner
which was fully loaded with fuel.

Have a nice day. I'm going to play with my race car. You can study
up on the differences between flighter jets and "people carriers"



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You seriously do not know what you're talking about.

Do you even know what 'coast' means????

Simple to jump on a 'term', then think you are a know-it-all, suddenly.

Two hours, in a classroom and two more hours in a real simulator, and I could educate you far better than any of us can, via the Internet.

I am sorry, to see that the viral nature of the Internet results in erroneous information, and bad data that gets spread around by people who really shouldn't be acting as if they "know"....

This is the point....the Internet is great, but is prone to abuse.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Wrong again, as usual…
It seems you are out of date on your missile technology (which is not
surprising). Here are some of the latest models used to date (and pre 2001):

AIM 9X


More corrections for TF:

The defining characteristic of the AIM9X would be?? Vectored thrust and off-boresight /90 degree tracking. What does that have to do with the discussion on whether or not a 20 lb sidewinder warhead can blow up a 757? Same 20 lb warhead as previous versions. Dodging the question and changing the discussion and off topic – PfT tactic #1.

Plus, AIM-9X IOC (initial operational capability) was November 2003, a tad after you claimed it could have been used by an Air National Guard pilot on 9/11.


AIM 120


Is this your idea of “debate”? Posting a video? PFT tactic #2

I *know* about AMRAAM. I know what it does, what its radar modes are, its range and capabilities. I also know what an 50 lb annular-blast-frag warhead does and what it is designed to do.


Also note you are comparing a fighter jet which is designed to withstand missile strikes, uses special fuel to resist explosion and has less fuel on board.


What “special fuel” might that be? AF a/c use JP-8 (flash point 100 f), Navy uses JP-5, (flash point 140 f) to minimize on-deck fires. Nothing so “special” about that. Jet-A is, of course, pure kerosene with a flash point of 120 degrees f.

Futhermore, the fuel tanks are not in the wings of fighter jets.

Demonstrating ignorance on a subject. PfT tactic #3

To correct (again) Turbofan on this one:

F22 fuel tanks


F-15 wing fuel tanks


F14 fuel tanks


Here's a video for YOU. What is that streaming out of the TA-4's right wing?

TA-4 and F-18 mishap


You will notice that when a wing is clipped, or tail section is clipped on a fighter, there is little damage, and/or flame.


Again, justify that previous statement with the video of the TA-4 that has a wing clipped (from the impact of the jettisoned MER from the Hornet) and instead of (as you claim) having a) little damage and/or b) flame, the plane immediately departs controlled flight and erupts in a fireball.

Not always, of course, as this famous photo of a VF-213 F-14 after a midair shows. The aircraft recovered safely, but only because the wing tanks were dry and fuel does not migrate from fuselage tanks to the wing tanks.




Most of the weight in (sic) central to the fuselage to allow agile flight.


CofG in a fighter is aft of the midline/center because most of the weight (engines) is towards the rear of the aircraft.


Now imagine those missiles igniting all that fuel in a commercial airliner which was fully loaded with fuel.


Why do you ignore the examples of airliners being hit by anti-aircraft missiles and surviving? Here’s another:

KAL Flight 902, 1978, absorbing 2 Soviet Aphid air-to-air missiles. 107 passengers and crew survived after the plane made an emergency landing on a frozen lake.

You don’t seem to understand what is going on here.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
The defining characteristic of the AIM9X would be?? Vectored thrust and off-boresight /90 degree tracking. What does that have to do with the discussion on whether or not a 20 lb sidewinder warhead can blow up a 757? Same 20 lb warhead as previous versions. Dodging the question and changing the discussion and off topic – PfT tactic #1.

Plus, AIM-9X IOC (initial operational capability) was November 2003, a tad after you claimed it could have been used by an Air National Guard pilot on 9/11.


GL tactic # whatever: inability to read and understand points.

Did I say the AIM 9X was used on, or before 2001? Re-read my
post carefully. It says:

Here are some of the latest models used to date (and pre 2001):

What does that mean to you and all of the readers out there?

YOU listed AIM-9

I gave you a current list of AIM-9 developments.

Do I have to spell this out further?



Is this your idea of “debate”? Posting a video? PFT tactic #2


Videos contain proof my friend. It's much better than explaining what
happens to an aircraft when being hit by a particular missile.

It's not a "tactic" in the sense of an excuse; it's an effective method
of showing GL's what happens in the real world.


Demonstrating ignorance on a subject. PfT tactic #3


You will notice that when a wing is clipped, or tail section is clipped on a fighter, there is little damage, and/or flame.


I'll link up some modern diagrams of jet fighter fuel tanks vs. commercial
airliner fuel tanks so you can see the difference. You have successfully
shown fuel tank locations in a few fighters; good stuff. A bit further out
than I have seen in more current jets, however nothing in the tips of the
wings like a commercial airliner.



Why do you ignore the examples of airliners being hit by anti-aircraft missiles and surviving? You don’t seem to understand what is going on here.


I'm not ignoring a thing. I showed you examples of missiles hitting tips
of wings, and tails of jets. They survived.

I showed you examples of missiles hitting fuel tanks, and more direct
hits of fuselage areas. Those jets blew up and broke apart.

What part of "hitting a commerical airliner in the wings/fuel tank" and
"blowing up" do you not understand?

Are you suggesting that this is not possible? Where in your examples
did the missiles hit the commerical airliner? fuselage? Anywhere but
the fuel tanks, or major components?

Most likely.

Do you remember that aircraft that lost the top skin of the fuselage
and flew many miles with passengers surviving - no missile strikes?
I believe it was a Hawaiian flight?

Yes, I know that a missile hitting a non-volatile area of a jet will not
destroy it.

I do also realize that a hit to the wings, or under belly fuel tank section
will destroy it.

Tell me this is not the case?

The point is, I have proven that a missile strike to a fuel tank on a fighter
which is DESIGNED to resist destruction can be blown up.

You're trying to tell me this is not possible with a fat, non-combat type
commerical airliner?



Sometimes you have to wonder who you're debating on the other side
of this screen, "Trebor".

Again, have a nice day. Please stop twisting my words. Re-read my
posts and get a grip. I'll post up some images of jet fuel tanks if you
really want to debate a dead horse; maybe I'll start a new thread to
prevent further derail.

ETA: 757 Fuel Tank Location




[edit on 30-5-2009 by turbofan]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan
 


You seriously do not know what you're talking about.


You've nailed that comment to the wall for all to see.

Hay Turbo, you brought a dull knife to a gun fight!


In response to knowledgeable people telling that airliners don't normally break up when hit by a missile with reasons and examples shown, you stated:


Originally posted by turbofan
Also note you are comparing a fighter jet which is designed to withstand missile strikes, uses special fuel to resist explosion and has less fuel on board. Futhermore, the fuel tanks are not in the wings of fighter jets.

Most of the weight in central to the fuselage to allow agile flight.


Trebor has correctly DESTROYED each and everyone of these statements. (Echo) You seriously do not know what you're talking about.


Originally posted by turbofan
It's not a "tactic" in the sense of an excuse; it's an effective method
of showing GL's what happens in the real world.


The irony meter is not only pegged, it exploded with this one.


Originally posted by turbofan
I'll link up some modern diagrams of jet fighter fuel tanks vs. commercial
airliner fuel tanks so you can see the difference. You have successfully
shown fuel tank locations in a few fighters; good stuff. A bit further out
than I have seen in more current jets, however nothing in the tips of the
wings like a commercial airliner.


Oh, please show a fighter without fuel either in or on the wings. What does fuel in the wing tips have to do with anything. An IR missile will go at the engine and a radar missile will most likely go to the fuselage. Shifting the goalpost and trying to cover up your incompetence on these subjects will fool some people some of the time, but ........


Originally posted by turbofan
I do also realize that a hit to the wings, or under belly fuel tank section
will destroy it.


Destroy it how? Cause little bitty pieces to fall over an 8 mile radius?....hardly.


Originally posted by turbofan
The point is, I have proven that a missile strike to a fuel tank on a fighter
which is DESIGNED to resist destruction can be blown up.


Sure, a A-A missile hitting a fuel tank on any aircraft is likely to produce an explosion. There will still be big pieces falling to the ground.

Describe details of how a fighter is designed to resist destruction by a missile if the missile actually hits. In fact a fighter is easier to bring down (if hit) than a Commercial Airliner because all of the critical components are located in the confined area of the fuselage. Critical components are spread out in an airliner. An engine and possibly the wing would be affected by an IR missile hit, but electronic and/or hydraulic flight controls won't likely be affected, except on the one wing. Do you really know anything at all about aircraft construction?


Originally posted by turbofan
Sometimes you have to wonder who you're debating on the other side
of this screen, "Trebor".


You took the words right out of my mouth. It's obvious not someone who knows much about aircraft, Turbo.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReheatTrebor has correctly DESTROYED each and everyone of these statements. (Echo) You seriously do not know what you're talking about.


Right, so the video is fake then?


An IR missile will go at the engine and a radar missile will most likely go to the fuselage.


Mr. Reheat, please view the video of REAL life IR missiles hitting tips of
wings and tail sections.

See, that's what a video does. It DESTROYS and exposes children with
keyboards with too much time on their hands. I call them "Netgineers".


Destroy it how? Cause little bitty pieces to fall over an 8 mile radius?....hardly.


Put up, or shut Mr. Reheat. You've been dodging questions for weeks.

What's more liekly, an exploding aircraft at altitude raining parts over
8 miles, or a 24 knot wind that cannot move a smoke cloud?

Still waiting for your expert opinion on that one



Sure, a A-A missile hitting a fuel tank on any aircraft is likely to produce an explosion. There will still be big pieces falling to the ground.


Thank you for:

a. Contradicting yourself
b. Proving Trebor wrong
c. Proving me correct

Big pieces can crash to the ground and break-up. Did we see 100% of the
video showing all of the 8 mile debris field? Probably not; but enough
to prove UA93 did not bury itself in hole.




Describe details of how a fighter is designed to resist destruction by a missile if the missile actually hits... Do you really know anything at all about aircraft construction?


I'll have a few links to lend you.


Please start a new thread and stop going off topic. Once again, you
are avoiding my questions in either thread. Tatic # ?



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I still don't understand why trebor is going on about supersonic military fighters in the first place. Weren't we told that United 93 was a Boeing 757-222 airliner?

In the interests of comparing Boeings to Boeings, and in a "mid-air break up" context, wouldn't TWA 800 be more relevant to the United 93 thread here? Granted, TWA 800 was a 747, but would the MTOW and other aircraft performance parameters be closer between the 2 Boeing "heavies" or an (obsolete) carrier-based supersonic F-14 Tomcat interceptor?

www.twa800.com...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join