9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Oh, and an additional bonus if someone knows what kind of Sim that actually is, and where it's located. I will be watching closely, looking for clues (since I didn't see any credits for it).

The more I look at it, there more I'm tempted to think it's some sort of generic sim, aimed at giving a layman a feeling for what it's like to fly a big jet.



It appears to have a "center" front window, which to my knowledge is only found on Douglas passenger jets (DC-9 and derivatives) - but of couse, the flight deck resembles nothing found on a Douglas passenger jet. The alternative would be to look at smaller private jets, but IIRC it's only Dassault that uses a center front window.

And for some reason, the radio stack found on the upper EICAS/ECAM looks like something out of MSFS

ETA: And before the truthers get snarky, I'm well aware that there are other types with a center front cockpit window. My point is, it's definantly not a feature of Boeing 757 type aircraft.

If experienced pilots could not do this in a simulator then that puts even more evidence that the U.S is behind it all brining one of there most experienced pilot on board to crash the plane into the towers so the whole world will have reason to suggest that this recession and poverty is not there fault.

reply to post by QuidEstVerita
What it makes me think is that the proposed path of the airliner type plane that hit tower 2 of the WTC is wrong.
The supposed evidence that it is the correct path is several photos that seem to follow along a very similar path. Well not that hard to fake if there was something that really did follow that path. I think there was but it just was not a regular airliner type plane. There was such a thing but it flew a very reasonable path that would not have been especially difficult to follow. What I mean is that an airliner plane flew straight into the building and I know because I watched it do it. But it did not do a dive bomb shot, and the only way I can reconcile my experience with what we have today which looks very much like a dive bombing plane, is that it was somehow manufactured.
That does not rule out something dive bombing into the building but to me, it probably ran into the west wall , as it should have, coming down at an angle like that. So, someone choreographs these nice photos that show a plane dive bombing and they match up because they follow a given path which really happened but just not an airliner. Then they have a video appear on the news that shows this dive bombing thing make this incredible loop and straighten out just in time to run into the south wall. Seems all great just as long as there is no video that shows up with an airliner following a low path. All the eye witnesses in the world can conveniently be ignored when there are these nice far away fuzzy videos of this loop maneuver.
My challenge is for people to think about this and what seems real to you and how simply are the masses fooled with just this tiny bit of manipulation.

Youtube video title:

Breakfast at Tiffany's in LA

by youtube channel:

911TNLZ

reply to post by shure
I wondered how this laughing smiley could possibly be appropriate,
then watched the video.
The premise is good but after a while if you are not a fan of the song
then it gets a bit tedious.
The first minute is well worth watching.

reply to post by QuidEstVerita


Ahhhhh....the keyword there is "IF"!!!:

If experienced pilots could not do this in a simulator....

The premise that experienced pilots "could not" do it is rubbish.

Hence, the thread premise is irrelevant. The "source" of the entire opening post (the "OP") is in quesiton, and needs to be evaluated properly.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by QuidEstVerita

 

Ahhhhh....the keyword there is "IF"!!!:

If experienced pilots could not do this in a simulator....

The premise that experienced pilots "could not" do it is rubbish.

Hence, the thread premise is irrelevant. The "source" of the entire opening post (the "OP") is in quesiton, and needs to be evaluated properly.......

I saw in one of your earlier posts that you tried to arrange to test this out on a simulator yourself..
How did that turn out?
Did YOU manage the scenario??

reply to post by backinblack


My intent (then) was to do something with full support and cooperation with ATS....on video, and in a manner similar to some other of the video producitons....in order to use the "bully pulpit" that ATS has continued to provide to dispel a number of other myths and fallacies.

(Some of the ATS videos have evolved, since actually. It was still a fairly new concept, just two or three years ago).

Idea was to organize a "junket" of sorts....of course, "who" to finance it was a sticking point. ALSO, I was just (still am) an anonymous member...well, over time, not so "anonymous" anymore....not to certain individuals that matter. HOWEVER, if those same individuals that matter do not deem it a proper project, as I had envisioned??

More on this..."where"? And, "who" to involve?? We never got beyond my suggestion, though....(I STILL have a few ideas....)....

It IS their playground. Not my place to interfere. My idea was not seen as a priority, in light (I think) of the incredibly SMALL minority who still "believe" in the stated premise that headlines this very thread.


As I mentioned, at the time (back in late 2007-early 2008) the sense was that the "controversy" was over-and-done-with, on that topic. Imagine the surprise that it STILL gets resurrected?? Latest incarnation, that appallingly bad "Jesse Ventura" episode, and the NOT-a-Boeing 757-simulator they used (although it WAS called, by "Jesse", in voice-over narration as such).

Pilots who know better don't fall for the sort of claptrap spewed by the fringe MINORITY....who do so for reasons known only to them.

As I keep asking --- "Of all the tens of thousands of professional airline pilots, JUST in the United States! WHY aren't THEY, too, all "up in arms" and joining the ranks of these fringe groups??"

reply to post by weedwhacker


I wont get into the minority that still believe or why pilots don't come forward,
but I think it would make a GREAT ATS show..

I've noticed we have a few pilots as members..
Get one or two from each side of the fence and setup a challenge..

Be great viewing...
You could wear a helmet Weedwhacker like the guy on Top Gear.
We don't need faces, just controled results

reply to post by backinblack


LOL!!!!!!

You could wear a helmet Weedwhacker like the guy on Top Gear.
We don't need faces, just controled results.

LOL! No, I would NOT hide my face!

(Heck...there's already a picture of me, in ATS archives.....).

Still, waiting for interest to swell......

.....idea (as I think I've mentioned, may be too involved and need editing) was to have 2+2+2.

2 utter "newbies".

2 "fairly inexperienced", but licensed pilots.

and, 2 who are slightly more advanced in their experience.

ALL would receive the same (and videoed) "briefing" in the typical airline training setting....a "classroom" that is equipped with the normal "oversized" photos of instrument panels....and any other training aids that are supplied, to focus on the aspects that are pertinent. (We don't have to train for "everything", of course....)

A typical "briefing" of that sort, prior to entering the simulator (in typical airline training curricula) last from 1 1/2 to 2 hours. (With bathroom breaks, of course!!).

Simulator "slot" times are generally scheduled in 4+30 blocks....TWO 2-hour sessions, slight break in between, and some "wiggle room" in the other 10-15 minutes....so as not to impose on the next group scheduled behind you.

The simulator would (ideally) be equipped (not all are) with a video camera set-up....already installed and with a frame rate that is compatible to the frame rates of any video displays inside. (To prevent the distortions you see, when video frame "re-fresh" rates on displays don't synch with the camera video capture rate).

A "second" video camera could be used, also, IN the simulator....for editing later (in the finished version...NOT to alter the results, but just because...well, in reality, things happening in "real time" are quite dull. It helps to "edit" the boring parts that just waste time....). Second camera could capture facial reactions, etc. IS not a mandatory requirement, the sound track might be enough.

Back to my idea of "2+2+2"....would have to combine, to same time (and expense)...since there are two pilot seats of course. COULD, maybe, combine four at a time, and switch seats. (MIGHT want to have me, or another qualified pilot in one of the seats)....(Depending on the simulator, and available "observer" seats installed. Usually, there is one for the "instructor"/sim operator, and at LEAST one more...often two more). The company will NOT let anyone else but their own people operate the sim....so, seating may be limited....AND, if the motion is turned on, it can get rough at times, inside....could leave the motion off, may have to, for the "crashes" anyway.....("crash" can be inhibited....again, this depends on the manufacturer of the simulator....and how it's set-up for the "flight"...).

Thus, making it TWO sessions within the 4+30 ...AND crunching time and money, could boil it down to TWO 2+hour sessions, and just limiting time in seats....(I haven't done a full lesson-plan on this yet, just tossing out ideas....).

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weed, I like the concept..
We are on opposite sides of the fence but I am all for facts..
What would it cost and can we organize enough from each side of the fence?
Can we get ATS onboard to help out and promote.?
I'm more than happy to put in a few bucks, lets see the cost and how we can get others to put in aswell..

Surely this is the sort of thing that helps make ATS great...

At the risk of making myself look like an ignoranus, isn't the simulator rather useless in demonstrating aerodynamic stress levels on an airframe?

I realise the title of this thread implies that pilot skill is the pivotal issue, but personally I'm more interested in whether or not the aircraft itself was built to cope with the documented top speeds under the documented tricky conditions.

Not to discourage anyone from doing the simulator experiment, though - I'm still interested in what the outcome might reveal.

Originally posted by lachstockn2
At the risk of making myself look like an ignoranus, isn't the simulator rather useless in demonstrating aerodynamic stress levels on an airframe?

I realise the title of this thread implies that pilot skill is the pivotal issue, but personally I'm more interested in whether or not the aircraft itself is built to cope with those speeds under those conditions.

Not to discourage anyone from doing the experiment, though - I'm still interested in what the outcome might reveal.

Yes, but this is something we CAN do..
Not sure how we'd test your theory unless some airline wouldn't mind risking a plane and a crew...

Wind tunnel testing is what I had in mind.

Anyone got access to one of those?

...And a real 767?

Originally posted by lachstockn2
Wind tunnel testing is what I had in mind.

Anyone got access to one of those?

Interesting concept but wind tunnels are only air..
There are other forces at work such as G forces in the turns etc..

reply to post by lachstockn2


No, not an "ignoramus" for asking.

Even the REAL ignoramus (who used to post in this thread) admitted (once pressed) to the Boeing demonstrated 420 knots (KIAS) dive speed for the 767 (and, by default, the 757 as well....same "family").

And THAT was just for demo.....no reason aerodynamically that it could not go faster, in terms of KIAS.

What is MOST CRITICAL on the airframe is the Mach number....especially nearing critical Mach, when airflow patterns on areas of the airframe can be HIGHER than the overall airplane speed.

Of course.....at the temperatures near Sea Level (as seen on 9/11) none of the airplanes got anywhere near Mach critical speeds.

Might be time to re-post this short clip?? Boeing 767 in cockpit, as they allow airspeed to reach Vmo.

NOTE, please, the lack of any excessive pitch attitudes....it IS a short clip, but rest assured....HAD they not leveled off (which, as you will note, is effortless) AND reduced the thrust....the airspeed would have continued to increase...

NO extreme nose down pitch attitude required, just gravity and thrust....especially for very brief instances of such excessive speed build-up:

reply to post by weedwhacker

Even the REAL ignoramus (who used to post in this thread) admitted (once pressed) to the Boeing demonstrated 420 knots (KIAS) dive speed for the 767 (and, by default, the 757 as well....same "family").

And THAT was just for demo.....no reason aerdynamically that it could not go faster, in terms of KIAS.

But what altitude was the demo performed at WW..?
We know that has a HUGE impact...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2

 

No, not an "ignoramus" for asking.

Dude, you spelt it wrong

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2

 

Even the REAL ignoramus (who used to post in this thread) admitted (once pressed) to the Boeing demonstrated 420 knots (KIAS) dive speed for the 767 (and, by default, the 757 as well....same "family").

And THAT was just for demo.....no reason aerdynamically that it could not go faster, in terms of KIAS.

What is MOST CRITICAL on the airframe is the Mach number....especially nearing critical Mach, when airflow patterns on areas of the airframe can be HIGHER than the overall airplane speed.

Of course.....at the temperatures near Sea Level (as seen on 9/11) none of the airplanes got anywhere near Mach critical speeds.

I'm not discounting the importance of Mach number - and I realise that the speed of sound works independently of air density - but isn't air density more relevant aerodynamically than air temperature at such a low altitude? Isn't that why they refer to KEAS (Knots Equivalent Air Speed) in this type of scenario?

reply to post by lachstockn2


The "scenario"? And "KEAS"?

... but isn't air density more relevant aerodynamically than air temperature at such a low altitude? Isn't that why they refer to KEAS (Knots Equivalent Air Speed) in this type of scenario?

"KEAS" was raised by those at the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" site, as yet another red herring distraction tactic.

"Equivalent Airspeed" is NOT something normally taught to pilots...I HAD TO LOOK IT UP (As did, I imagine, the bozos at "P4T") and what I found is it is an engineering term, specific to certain design aspects....IN MOST CASES, though....KEAS is just about the same as KCAS (a term I AM familiar with).

And, no...the "density" of the air near sea level is just more flatulence being spewed in your (the audience's) direction, by those sorts of websites......

....I don't think I have to re-post video examples, from airshows, of large commercial airplanes performing at LOW ALTITUDES and HIGH AIRSPEEDS? Do I?? (You can find them for yourself....)....