reply to post by wx4caster
Allow me to examine your post, which I thank you in advance for...
3: i work in aviation
OK...right there a lot of my 'friends' on ATS also "work in aviation". That is a VERY broad description. I will come right and say it, not only
do I work in aviation, I am a pilot, with thousands of hours of experience, not just on the B757/76 (on which I hold a Type Rating) but on a multitude
of other airplanes, and NOT just Transport Category...(though the majority of my time IS in larger jets....)
...and even i know that the amount of push coming out of even smaller jet engines will cause damage to vehicles and blow objects of several
hundred pounds around like ragdolls...
You must be thinking, here, of static thrust scenarios...also known as "jet blast"....when a jet engine, as we're talking here, attached to a wing
develops thrust...well, like Newton says, "Equal and Opposite Reaction"... if that's unclear, realize that IF you have a jet PARKED, and the
engine throttled up and blasting out...OR, IF the jet is NOT parked, but still has the thrust from the engines blasting aft....well....the momentum of
the blast is about to send one jet (one not parked) forward, eventually...the one parked....the friction of its weight against the pavement
counteracts the thrust...so the energy has to go somewhere, right????
If any of this makes sense, then you're getting it. You are catching on to the mechanics of Newtonian Motion....
For an airplane that is already in flight...the propulsive force from the engines has already supplied a lot of the forward energy. Another source of
momentum is gravity...ANY pilot who reads this will understand that concept.
SO...from a passing high-speed airlplane at low altitude??? Think of the wave of compression, of the air ahead of the object, and the resulting
disturbance in the air as the object passes....IT IS TH BULK OF THE OBJECT that matters, NO the exhaust flow from the engines, in this case....
...the 330 degree turn and the descent are extraorinary because in order to do that you (like you said) have to have some sort of
NO!! You just look out the _ Alright, part of the turn, you lose sight of your original point, of course...BUT, any pilot knows, at a fairly
constant speed, and fairly constant bank angle, your radius of turn will stay fairly constant....allowing for any drift due to wind, of course....but
winds were light...and the turn shown was quite normal, in many regards....
BUT, again, views out the forward windows, and the side windows (Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4) of the B757 are very good...it is a nice view, in the VFR
conditions that day especially.
the view point (as you already know as you stated you are an aviator) from a large cockpit like that at an angle in a decline is not the
same as driving your compact around the block or doing a three point turn (which alot of "normal" people cant seem to do with ease).
I left that part in because a "3-point turn" is just not the same!!!!!
(for those who are not familiar, a '3-point turn' is an automotive term...it is really a TWO-DIMENSIONAL maneuver, involving turning the car,
stopping, reversing and turnig and reversing again...as necessary to get you car pointing in a direction 180 degres from the start....in airplanes, we
don't STOP, REVERSE, and CONTINUE like that...)
4 planes hit 3 buildings.
Huh???? Living in an alternate Universe, maybe??
...you also stated that it is impossible for the planes to have been remotely controlled. (or improbable, or not likely...
As far as the Boeing 757 and 767, yes...BECAUSE they could not have maneuvered as they did....OK....let's go with that, for the moment.
A "remote" pilot would not fell any g forces...he/she would onlyhave whatever instruments were there to guide them.
There would HAVE TO BE some sort of visual reference, for these "remote pilots"...NOT ONLY ALL of the various things to watch, on their
instruments....but so, so many other things, to "PULL THIS OFF" perfectly.
BUT...the question that is never asked...WHY FOUR AIRPLANES???????
ONE is difficult enough...TWO would be phenomenal, and would have made enough if it were a "false flag" as suggested....BUT WHY FOUR?????!!!!
AND, WHY DID ONE "fail", if the intent was to have FOUR???? Don't you see yet?
IF none of you have ever flown out of Newark, then you have NO IDEA of the kinds of delays that develop there...for no apparent reason (well, I know
why...but it's a long story).
Point is, the PLAN failed BECAUSE of United 93!!!! It had an excessive taxi delay prior to take off. This is not a mystery, it is FACT!!!!
Yet, people wish to believe these incredible and ridiculous conspiracies, instead of the most obvious simple truths...which anyone in the Airline
business can explain, but instead we have morons who have no other lives who spin the most incredible yarns, from their minds as they sit n basements
somewhere, and use the Internet to spin the nonsense.....
We have had drones for years, and have had the proven capability to remotely fly large passenger planes since the late 60's when america
was trying to start a war with cuba.
NOT in the way seen on 9/11!!!!!!!
Trying to imagfine FOUR airplanes, all commercial jets that were known to have departed on normally scheduled flights, from their respective airports,
and NO BODY has yet come forward, not ONE employee who was responsible for those flights --- and anyone who understands how airlines work knows there
are a multitude of responsibilities for EACH flight....there are so many layers, and paperwork and documentation.....and PEOPLE who would, by NOW have
said something!!! I mean, if there's money to be made...dontcha think SOMEONE would have come forward?????
Realize that a LOT of airlines have laid off people, in the last eight years...come on, THINK!!!! NO ONE has come forward???????
[edit on 10 October 2009 by weedwhacker]