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.

 

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

page: 37
127
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by earthdude
T

Your use of the term "commercial jet" is illustrative of a total lack of familiarity with the subject matter of this thread. The FAA defines as a commercial operation any flight for compensation or hire. So if you go out and hire a jet designed for supersonic flight like a Mig 29 at Zhukovsky airbase in Moscow or a Mig 21 from Rena Adventures in Stead for a quick supersonic ride,you think that it proves something. It doesn't.Going supersonic isn't the issue. Exceeding design limits by 40% is. For example, the Convair (now General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler was designed with a Vmo of 1147 mph, or right at 1000 knots. That's a Mmo of 1.73 mach. 3 of them broke apart in flight when design limits were exceeded for various reasons.
Until you can calculate compressibility factor, mach numbers, Reynolds number, dynamic pressures and kinematic coefficients for different airfoils at different speeds and altitudes, you're probably better off sticking to Popular Mechanics for your scientific discussions of this subject.
For instance, some numbers for United 175, assuming the government reported speeds are correct are: Dynamic pressure - 893psf; Reynolds number - 135417171; kinematic coefficient - 1.55962E-4 ft^2/s; P total compressibility - 3083 psf; T total compressibility - 579 R; viscosity density - 0.002308672 slug/ft^3.
Please advise which of these numbers with whichyou disagree and show the computations you believe are correct.
I didn't think so.

Edit to get rid of a dangling preposition. That's a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Cool science bro! I'll leave that stuff to you. Yes, the forces applied to the airframe were excessive, maybe even more than 40%. So what do you think my chances of surviving are? Use sea level as my end of dive. Please compute using a standard 727 and Murphy's Law. Also factor in the religious miracle component. I am sure I will be crying out to Allah and any other religous deities that might help. You can factor in lots of things but the integrity of the aircraft always boils down to the way it was built. One bad rivet can make all the difference.


You are actually making our point. The Type Certificate and Operating Limitations numbers are ascertained assuming perfect rivets. And it seems you have 'target fixation' on structural failure and are ignoring controllability issues. However if you want the numbers for a 727, you have to tell me which model; -100, -200, etc, and terminal (I use the word advisadly) dive speed at sea level




posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by earthdude
T

Your use of the term "commercial jet" is illustrative of a total lack of familiarity with the subject matter of this thread. The FAA defines as a commercial operation any flight for compensation or hire. So if you go out and hire a jet designed for supersonic flight like a Mig 29 at Zhukovsky airbase in Moscow or a Mig 21 from Rena Adventures in Stead for a quick supersonic ride,you think that it proves something. It doesn't.Going supersonic isn't the issue. Exceeding design limits by 40% is. For example, the Convair (now General Dynamics) B-58 Hustler was designed with a Vmo of 1147 mph, or right at 1000 knots. That's a Mmo of 1.73 mach. 3 of them broke apart in flight when design limits were exceeded for various reasons.
Until you can calculate compressibility factor, mach numbers, Reynolds number, dynamic pressures and kinematic coefficients for different airfoils at different speeds and altitudes, you're probably better off sticking to Popular Mechanics for your scientific discussions of this subject.
For instance, some numbers for United 175, assuming the government reported speeds are correct are: Dynamic pressure - 893psf; Reynolds number - 135417171; kinematic coefficient - 1.55962E-4 ft^2/s; P total compressibility - 3083 psf; T total compressibility - 579 R; viscosity density - 0.002308672 slug/ft^3.
Please advise which of these numbers with whichyou disagree and show the computations you believe are correct.
I didn't think so.

Edit to get rid of a dangling preposition. That's a word you shouldn't end a sentence with.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by 4nsicphd]

Cool science bro! I'll leave that stuff to you. Yes, the forces applied to the airframe were excessive, maybe even more than 40%. So what do you think my chances of surviving are? Use sea level as my end of dive. Please compute using a standard 727 and Murphy's Law. Also factor in the religious miracle component. I am sure I will be crying out to Allah and any other religous deities that might help. You can factor in lots of things but the integrity of the aircraft always boils down to the way it was built. One bad rivet can make all the difference.


You are actually making our point. The Type Certificate and Operating Limitations numbers are ascertained assuming perfect rivets. And it seems you have 'target fixation' on structural failure and are ignoring controllability issues. However if you want the numbers for a 727, you have to tell me which model; -100, -200, etc, and terminal (I use the word advisadly) dive speed at sea level

Glad to help. I'm not fighting for the OS. I just wanted to demonstrate that seemingly impossible feats can be preformed by ordinary aircraft. The pilots I have know were about the craziest of all pilots. They would routinely exceed weight, stress, take off distance, landing distance, and maintenence limits. Of course they all crashed. But not before preforming some flying miracles.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
As I have stated, these are all possibilities, some more probable than others. We just disagree on which are more or less probable.


No, you and a NASA Flight Director who designed Flight Control systems, disagree.

I just happen to agree with the NASA Flight Director and not you.

Again pteridine, how much experience do you have in aviation? What type of experience? Are you willing to put your name to your claims as Deets does? Are you willing to find a Capt who will exceed Vmo by 150 knots? Are you willing to sit in that airplane?

Why do you avoid these questions?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
reply to post by pteridine
 


LOL funny.yet you fail to look at my previous post where I commented on the planes. If the airspeed is not as claimed then the KE is not sufficient to knock down the 3 building in NYC.


Did you really just state as fact... If the planes weren't going at the reported speeds ... it wouldnt have "knocked down" the building??
Please look in a mirror and repeat that out loud.. come back and tell me if you want to revise that statement.

Where was this tested? So did the impact "knock down" the building?
Let tiffany speak for you...I am sure she would agree that you are using a strawman argument. At least Tiffany thinks about the words she types BEFORE she types them.


I am not a big believer on a modified plane theory.I am not sure if P4T does or not. I am not a member of that group.
Again you play games of words to deflect from events.Did you even bother to watch the link to the documentary of the 747 or are you so preoccupied with being witty that you can disregard data?

To the poster who asked about mach tuck-
Mach Tuck happens at high Mach numbers.The 510 knots as almost sea level is below the critical mach number I believe.So I do not think mach tuck is a factor. What is a factor is the high airspeed.
Mach speed changes with altitude.At low alt airspeed is limiting and as you climb higher into the flight levels mach becomes the limiter.
I am just a simple airline pilot with 3 Airline Transport Pilot licenses (FAA and JAA and one other I wont mention) and 5 transport category jet
type ratings.I think a previous poster who mentioned reynolds numbers and dynamic pressure etc can break it down better than I can.
I am going to play fantasy baseball. I suspect he has the bat hidden somewhere....



[edit on 15-7-2010 by JetStream]


Come on.. there are groups of you?? Some believe that more of the story is made up? Do you guys have social rankings for how much you believe?
All you need to understand.. With out duplicating the EXACT same situation.. anything, ALL of you can provide is OPINIONS... based on assumed statistics and partial testing.. PERIOD!!!



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
You and “Tiffany” conclude that only one aircraft was suspiciously fast.



Actually, 3 aircraft were "suspiciously fast".

757 Vmo - 350 knots

UA93 - 488 knots
AA77 - 462 knots


767 Vmo - 360 knots

UA175 - 510 knots
AA11 - 430 knots


AA11 is the only aircraft which seems to have a plausible speed reported.. But keep in mind, EA990 still broke up in flight at 5 knots less than AA11.

@Jetstream

Originally posted by JetStream
Mach Tuck happens at high Mach numbers.The 510 knots as almost sea level is below the critical mach number I believe.So I do not think mach tuck is a factor.


The aircraft doesn't have to above above Mcrit for Mach Tuck to occur. Mach Tuck can happen due to Center of pressure moving too far aft of CG. This is another reason a Vmo is set below crossover altitudes.

@ghofer

Originally posted by ghofer
This is sounding even crazier. How would they have known so far in advance where the fighters would have been flying that day? How would they have known when the ATC would have noticed the planes being off course and then alerting NORAD or the air force to the situation?


It appears you don't have any time flying in US airspace or any controlled airspace for that matter. Stick to your X-Plane.

@Joey

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Also, please address the point about the planes NOT flying straight and level into the towers. Video evidence says they were down 4-6 degrees.

What does this do for controllability?



Jetstream is basically saying "flight path" when he says "straight and level". Same meaning and he said it a few pages ago.

In other words, Jetstream feels it is impossible to maintain a flight path at such speed well beyond the aircraft envelope. The aircraft cannot be controlled. It is out of control. Jetstream can correct me if I misinterpreted his meaning. But I don't think he will as clearly he is a pilot.


@Mobius

Please let us know when you're willing to go on record as it is impossible to witness the aircraft at your 2oclock if you were between the Pentagon and Crystal city, unless of course you wish to admit the data the govt is providing is bogus.

I think I covered all the relevant issues. Let me know if I missed anyone.

Did anyone miss me?




[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


My god you know my cabin crew!
LOL point taken. Trying to keep it simple for all parties but I accept the schooling.

Joey-
An aircraft banks with either aileron or spoilers.Simply put aileron increase lift on one wing-usually low speed flight,causeing the wing to rise.Spoiler spoil lift on one wing causeing the wing to drop.Spoilers are usually used in hi speed flight.Adverse yaw and supersonic shock wave formation is usually why.
control-An airplane is a beautifully balanced piece of equipment,within its design parameters. At the claimed speed what will the roll rate be?Don't know.I don't even know if the spoilers could stay attached at that speed.But a little if any deflection can have huge control issues.The lift on the other wing is now much higher than the spoiler deflected wing.Instead of rocking and rolling she looked steady on the clips I saw.
And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke.
I admit the 737-400 is not a 75 or 76.But I believe the basic design principles are the same.
If the speed is not as advertised then the 3 buildings should not have collapsed.
But they did.
I believe a 757 and 767 hit the WTC.
I do not believe they they are what caused it to collapse.

And I feel like I am hijacking tiffanys thread. Again my apologies. I do not know if my theory is a P4T "authorized" theory or not.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream
And I feel like I am hijacking tiffanys thread. Again my apologies. I do not know if my theory is a P4T "authorized" theory or not.


P4T do not offer theory. All their analysis is based on data.

But I think P4T would approve of your posts. After all, you are a pilot and you understand the information and data reported do in fact raise an eyebrow if not a red flag to almost every aviator with a brain.


Just one correction, 767's are reported to hit the towers, a 757 is reported to hit the Pentagon and a 757 reportedly went down in Shanksville.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream

If the speed is not as advertised then the 3 buildings should not have collapsed.




What led you to this belief?

I respect what you're saying about planes, but the most you can argueably say about the plane impacts is that if the speed is lower, then there would have been less impact damage.

You'd need an engineering study to support the "should not have collapsed" statement though, and you don't have it.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JetStream

And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke.



Ok, I'm confused by this.

Here, it sounds like you're indeed talking about mach tuck. But in a previous post, you stated that you believed that mach tuck shouldn't be an issue for 175.

What am I missing here? Is this irrelevant?

Should we just be sticking to the controllability issue as far as roll/spoilers/aelirons instead?



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
the towers were designed to withstand a 600 mph 707 hit because 707s would be flying around at 600 mph. Happy??


So you're saying that it would normal for a 707 to be flying around at 1000' doing 600mph?



No, but the building engineers probably just got the numbers for the biggest thing flying around and didn't have much knowledge of aeronautics. Probably ust called Boeing and asked what's the biggest thing flying around New York and how fast is it?
It was the early 60s and jet travel was not yet very common for the common man. Remember, in the 60s many airlines were still using DC-3s. The first ever 707 in New York was in 1958 by Pan Am.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JetStream
 



And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke.


OK. BUT, you say it next:


I admit the 737-400 is not a 75 or 76.But I believe the basic design principles are the same.


Well, big wing, two engines, yes...basic "sameness". Different wing designs, though...very different. Just as the 737 series dubbed the "NG" has a very different wing planform and airfoil design.

VMO/MMO also, between the various B-737 models VERY different.

I'm typed on the B737, as well as the B757/767...and DC-9/MD80

OUR fleet of 737s consisted of the -300 and -500 (the so-called "classics"). The -400 is based on the -300 airframe, as you know...stretched.

-600, -700, -800 and -900 are different (we operate the 7, 8 and 9).

I've flown them all.

The 737-400 IS very different than 75/76, yes...as well as the stab trim authority, one would assume. Various sims (even Level-D), depending on manufacturer, may or may not have the algorithms in th programming to fully recreate flight environments above certain maximums...that is NEVER there function, anyway. Right?

You fly the 737, so you must be aware that the electric trim authority in the AND direction has a limit....you remember, correct?

Did you try pulling out the handles on the trim wheel and cranking it fully ND?

(In your airline's 'Cold Weather Ops' do they require you to manually crank full AND for the de-icing/anti-icing fluid application?? Ours does).


~~


If the speed is not as advertised then the 3 buildings should not have collapsed.


Fallacy, unable to be proven either way.


I believe a 757 and 767 hit the WTC.


Fully agreed. IN FACT, they were the Boeing 767s being operated as regularly scheculed passenger flights designated as AAL 11 and UAL 175. AFTER being hijacked by suicidal extremist terrorist murderers intent on maximum destruction and devastation for religious/political agenda.

We don't have recovered FDRs from those tow, but we do from AAL 77 and UAL 93.

AAL 77's data showed an airspeed of ~480KIAS just prior to impact at the Pentagon. In a shallow descent, after speed was built up as result, and combined with application of full thrust.

There is no reason to doubt simiar numbers invovled with AAL 11 and UAL 175. The EXACT numbers aren't that important, when discussing the extent of damage that can be inflicted on a building's structure.

Damage further added by the post-impact fires.


I do not believe they they are what caused it to collapse.


The inflicted damage caused a transfer of loads to remaining supports. The subsequent fires caused remaining supports to undergo additional stress, from heating-induced effects. Progressive failures resulted.

The airplanes' impacts were proximate causes of the collpases, by inflicting the damge in the first place.

[edit on 15 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Thank you Jetstream and 4nsicphd for posting in this thread. The debunkers spend their days and nights every day just waiting to swarm on any new hole found in the govt story, trying to obfuscate, minimize and neutralize the information so lurkers will go back to sleep.

They don't want any momentum on any topic related to 9/11.

Whether this is intentional or not, who knows.

But I do thank you for stepping up to the plate. I had my hands full for a while there. It felt like the Neo fight scene batting away multiple Agent Smiths... hehe.




[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Go on the record? I would have to give 2 flips about "the record" ... I dont believe the entire story fed to us by the Govt... But I am also not disecting every aspect of ever second of that day. Your cause has been to court and lost... How much more do you need? You truthers think you crap doesn't stink..

You have become no better than the govt. on this one.. you stick to talking points.. you are not open for debate.. Notice that nobody addresses WHY on gods green earth they would knowingly make those manuvers on purpose..
Because to assume they modified the planes... is to also assume they modified them for a reason...
Did they intentionally pull off these so called "improbable" maunvers..

Or maybe JUST MAYBE it was an unexperienced pilot.... Doing what ever it takes to complete the mission at hand.

Its funny.. the questions you address instantly are the ones that you can regurgitate quickly..

the rest ..I am sure you go back to your truthers bible and quote info as though you know it as fact! If someone went through that site and picked apart all of your theories and "facts" , I am sure there would be discrepancies.. But, nobody does that... because nobody cares.
Dont suggest that I do that, because I fall in the catagory of I dont care.
Now, some of you that will look for any attacking point, will say "then i dont care about my country". That couldnt be farther from the truth. I am smart enough to know, not to try and change things I can not change.

And to be completely honest... If you folks stuck to the things you could prove, allot more people would join the cause. But, you can't.. Its a race for you truthers, to be the first to bring up a discrepancy or a theory that the community will feed on like hungry vultures!

I am going to assume through out this discussion.. you have had to dual screen ATS and your truthers site.. so you can copy and paste others work and others ideas.

The truthers are no better than the sheep that follow the govt. story.. Most of the underlings will believe anything the "credible veterans of this fight say!

As to going on the record.. Like I have said.. I saw what I saw.. who it contradicts I could give 2 flips!!!!!!

My sticking point is this.... If your wrong about the rocket .... what else have you guys fabricated to fit your agenda?



[edit on 15-7-2010 by Mobius1974]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The 737-400 IS very different than 75/76


Well, isn't THAT interesting.

And here I've been accepting what he was saying all along.

Looks like yet another truther being deceptive.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


No, Joey....misunderstood:


Here, it sounds like you're indeed talking about mach tuck.


No, the description of the simulator "flight" and running out of nose down elevator authority has nothing to do with "tuck".

The implication is just the opposite, actually....involves the moment-arm of the engines' thrust direction relative to the CG***, and the fact thre is a slight pitch-up effect as result...typical of underslung engines. This effect is less pronunced, though, on the B-757/767 than on the B-737 series.
~~~~
***To clarify (I wish had a paper and pencil!) the CG always lies somewhere along the airframe's longitudinal axis (nose to tail to simplify it). If you drew a diagram showing the direction of the engine's thrust, it will be parrallel to, but not aligned exactly along, the longitudinal axis. That slight distance adds a 'rotation' moment that acts upon the entire airframe, with the effect it tends to pitch about the CG. The "off-set" amount varies, and as I said, it is not very pronounced in the B-757/767, when compared to the B-737. This is due to many factors, to include the physical designs.***

~~~~
Combined with the relationship of the C/L (Center of Lift) the wing produces compared to the CG. Calls into discussion the moment-arm of the elevator, based on its distance the longitudinal axis FROM the CG, to provide pitch authority (in this case cited, to counter the pitch-up tendency at the excessively high airspeeds, in the B-737-400 example).

Mach tuck is very different, and is a phenomenom that induces a pitch-DOWN tendency.





[edit on 15 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
@ghofer

Originally posted by ghofer
This is sounding even crazier. How would they have known so far in advance where the fighters would have been flying that day? How would they have known when the ATC would have noticed the planes being off course and then alerting NORAD or the air force to the situation?


It appears you don't have any time flying in US airspace or any controlled airspace for that matter. Stick to your X-Plane.
[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


Can't answer the question? A snide comment is your only response?

You missed this one too. If they needed the extra speed to beat the fighters to NY, why didn't they just use an airliner leaving New York? As well, that speed was only a final speed which didn't affect overall travel time. Your theory makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Various sims (even Level-D), depending on manufacturer, may or may not have the algorithms in th programming to fully recreate flight environments above certain maximums...that is NEVER there function, anyway. Right?


It's good you say this weedwhacker. Seems Pilots For 9/11 Truth agree.

A so-called "Truther" named John Bursill attempted to recreate the speeds in a 767 sim at Qantas (so he says, he has never provided any proof the test took place). He claims he was able to exceed Vmo by more than 180 knots IIRC, at 2000 feet, and claims to maintain straight and level rather "easily".

Clearly not a valid test.

It's all covered in the P4T presentation.

I'll just quote the rest of your post for posterity of your writing style before your edits.




Fully agreed. IN FACT, they were the Boeing 767s being operated as regularly scheculed passenger flights designated as AAL 11 and UAL 175.

[snip]

There is no reason to doubt simiar numbers invovled with AAL 11 and UAL 175. The EXACT numbers aren't that important, when discussing the extent of damage that can be inflicted on a building's structure.

[snip]

The airplanes' impacts were proximate causes of the collpases, by inflicting the damge in the first place.



I never seen my firefox spell checker light up so much. teehee.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghofer
You missed this one too. If they needed the extra speed to beat the fighters to NY, why didn't they just use an airliner leaving New York? As well, that speed was only a final speed which didn't affect overall travel time. Your theory makes no sense.



I don't know, I didn't plan the attack. That's what we're trying to find out.

Click Here

Why didn't the hijackers just Hijack planes from JFK, LGA or DCA to prevent intercept from the most powerful nation on earth? Did they know our response times better than those who could have planned it from the inside?

You feel the speeds are plausible. We get it. We disagree.

By the way, the speeds were constant above 500 knots for at least the last two minutes, while maneuvering. Please visit the multiple links provided in this thread which analyze the radar data.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
Go on the record? I would have to give 2 flips about "the record" ... I dont believe the entire story fed to us by the Govt... But I am also not disecting every aspect of ever second of that day.


You should, after all, we are killing people all over the world because of it. We are also being poked and prodded as American's because of it. Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Illegal wiretapping, the list goes on. Aren't you concerned?

The path you witnessed is fatal to the govt story.



[edit on 15-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


It's amazing.... :shk: Rob, you just don't get it, and probably never will....but, resorting to the snide cimments, when trapped and unable to support a postion, is a well-recognized M.O.

Juvenile "tee-hee"-ing at spelling???


However, THIS is yet another axam ple of trying to flip the script, and utterly LIE and twist what was presented:


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Various sims (even Level-D), depending on manufacturer, may or may not have the algorithms in th programming to fully recreate flight environments above certain maximums...that is NEVER there function, anyway. Right?


It's pretty clear, isn't it, what I wrote there??? I thought so. Howewver, seems YOU have to attempt to spin it, and it's rather obvious that you are completely wrong...hoping no one will notice?? (BTW, you missed a typo of mine, back up there...)

READ it again, and then defend what you wrote here:


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
It's good you say this weedwhacker. Seems Pilots For 9/11 Truth agree.


Gosh, I have seen this exact same tactic so many times, Mr. Balsamo...it is growing tiresome.

Oh, the "PffT" do??? Let's see what you wrote next:


A so-called "Truther" named John Bursill attempted to recreate the speeds in a 767 sim at Qantas (so he says, he has never provided any proof the test took place). He claims he was able to exceed Vmo by more than 180 knots IIRC, at 2000 feet, and claims to maintain straight and level rather "easily".


So....I point out that NOT ONLY WAS the other example, posted by an ATS member, of a Boeing 737-400 simulator that MAY OR MAY NOT have been manufactured by the same company as Mr. Bursill's Boeiing 767 sim at Qantas....(or anywhere else, for that matter) and THOSE differnces might account for (the AS member's) failure to remain level at excessive speeds above VMO....that shows, WHAT again???


Comprehension check please. Call tiffany over to read it for you, perhaps, and explain.


Clearly not a valid test.


No....what's invalid is the "PfffT"s feeble attempts to mash, distort, lie, and just plain get it WRONG in every endeavor...oh, excuse me, "presentation"...they try to foist off on gullible people who are willing to pony up the cash.....

One fine example is the dead horse is Egypt 990, and the incredibly incorrect attemts and assertions. THAT is intentionally misrepresnted in order to cram a square peg into a round hole of "PffT" so-called "truth" by ignoring (intentionally) several other factors that were responsible for the airframe structural failure in that instance.

(HINT: Your fake "Boeing" V-G diagram ought to provide the clue...and you don't even realize how you shoot yourselves in the feet, each and every time....)



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join