Originally posted by turbofan
Yes I'm serious.
I know that, based on the other aspects of this whole thing that you people are "serious" about. The problem is your "serious" is what most
everyone else sees is ridiculous (need I go into Camp Springs 1? "Morning rush hour traffic into KDCA? Flying in or near to P-56? SAM missiles at
the Pentagon? Wings ripping off Boeing airliners at 450 kts?).
You saw the "Smoke trail" in the DOD video?
Are you telling me that you know what made that smoke trail and that whatever it was that caused it should be recorded in the flight data?
Are you telling me a data acquistion system cannot record events that produce smoke coming from an jet engine?
I'll ask again. What caused that smoke trail? If you cannot answer that, you are just yakking out your PfT grommet again, making up crap. Since
you people believe the wings should have ripped off the aircraft by that point, I'm surprised you are even in this conversation. What did cause that
smoke trail? Condensation? Broken oil line? Ruptured hydraulic line? What was the time-to-impact from that particular point in the picture? Roughly
500 feet from the impact point? Roughly .66 seconds until impact at 770 feet per second? Enough time to record such info? You tell me, Wiley.
It's logic like this that answers the question why you, or none of your
"friends" will debate me live, nor more seasoned aviation pros.
People have no interest in "debating" you because you can't even answer the most basic of these events, choosing to ignore them instead.
People have no interest in debating you because your level of credibility, especially with the "seasoned veterans" you have, is absurdly hilarious.
Any group of "aviators" who say they could not crash a 767 dead on into a 1,000' skyscraper at 450 knots are fools and extremely poor pilots - I
can tell you that much.
Events such as the aforementioned Camp Springs 1 departure or the "Morning rush hour traffic into KDCA" or the flying in or near to P-56 or the SAM
missiles at the Pentagon or the wings ripping off Boeing airliners at 45 kts. The positions you people seem to take great enjoyment at erecting and
defending are really some of the most indefensible things I have ever seen.
The fact that nobody wants to "debate" you is because you are a group of immature children who are not worth spending any serious time on. Do YOU
even know what the Camp Springs 1 departure is? Have YOU talked to the controllers/flight planners at Andrews about when that departure is assigned?
Do YOU have any clue what the altitude differential is between aircraft on the CS 1 departure and aircraft headed into KDCA on a southern ILS
approach at the KDCA 187/2.5 point and the corresponding KADW 270/8? Do YOU have any clue what the regulations are even flying *close* to Prohibited
Area 56? Do YOU have any clue *whatsoever* about SAM missiles at the Pentagon being "stood down" on or about 9/11? Do YOU have any clue whatsoever
what the design and construction tolerances are and the excessive design specs built into Boeing airliners with regards to their ability to fly at 450
kts at 1,000 feet without their wings ripping off?
The problem about "debate", TF, is that you people think way to highly of yourselves. You are not a) that important nor b) that schooled in these
issues. You are like an aeronautical Levi Johnson - dying to have your 15-minutes of fame, and even wanting to go as far as posing for Playgirl to
"prove" your manliness; or an aerial Paris Hilton - wanting to be popular for no other treason than to be popular. You do succeed, however, at
reminding everyone about your serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Get over it, dude. He's been gone almost a year now.
You did read the link to the runway info and reason why John's interpretation of PA is incorrect?
I did read that you keep posting what are the FAA and manufacture acceptable standards. What I have not
seen you acknowledge (and don't
expect you to acknowledge) is that those standards are valid only when operating within the equipment's acceptable and designed operating ranges. In
other words, exceed the manufacturer's or FAA operating ranges and who knows what data you'll get.
In other words, as I read in an aviation safety magazine a number of years ago, any pilot who flies in icing conditions becomes an instantaneous test
pilot, flying a never-before-designed-nor-flown airframe and/or wing design. Conversely, any pilot who operates his aircraft outside of designed
parameters becomes an instantaneous test pilot, and as such should expect the possibility of abnormal or non-standard reports or readings from
equipment designed to operate at lower speeds or levels of use.
How fast were these aircraft going again and at what altitude? Oh that's right...the wings should have ripped off.