Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 112
141
<< 109  110  111    113 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Yes and I wouldn't mind so much if they got some new material...
It's like hearing the same joke over and over..



The only new material at this point is all the crap constantly made up by the truthers.....

Weedwacker can only reiterate the boring facts…..




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Here is a newly released video of the second WTC hit, from what looks to be a quite close camera position.

The reason I am posting it here is because of an earlier discussion I had on this thread, where I said that the plane flew through the smoke, and the other people said I was wrong. Why it would be important is the angle the plane would have to be flying at, which would have been something close to being out of the South, not out of the West, in that crazy corkscrew maneuver, we are led to believe by the Main Stream Media.
edit on 13-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



The only new material at this point is all the crap constantly made up by the truthers.....

Weedwacker can only reiterate the boring facts…..


Mate, Weedwhacker is ignoring my questions..
What does that tell you??



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


So were exactly does he fly through the smoke!!





posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Mate you do talk a lot of crap..

If there was that little difference, as you insist, in dynamic pressure at different altitudes,
then airlines would NOT bother flying at over 30000' where the atmosphere in much thinner..
Remember what NASA said Weed and I think they know a damn site more than you..

In particular, the aerodynamic forces acting on an object as it moves through the air are directly proportional to the dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure is therefore used in the definition of the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient.


You are really loosing all credibility mate...



Well I am sure weed will correct me if I am wrong but engines run more efficiently at higher altitudes!



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Well I am sure weed will correct me if I am wrong but engines run more efficiently at higher altitudes!


Unless you know what you are talking about it's best to keep quite..
We are discussing pressure on the airframe..Not engines or their fuel economy..



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Well I am sure weed will correct me if I am wrong but engines run more efficiently at higher altitudes!


Unless you know what you are talking about it's best to keep quite..
We are discussing pressure on the airframe..Not engines or their fuel economy..



Your words mate

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker

Mate you do talk a lot of crap..

If there was that little difference, as you insist, in dynamic pressure at different altitudes,
then airlines would NOT bother flying at over 30000' where the atmosphere in much thinner..
Remember what NASA said Weed and I think they know a damn site more than you..

You state they would not bother to fly over 30,000 feet due to little difference I gave the reason WHY THEY BOTHER! now DO you understand!

And as you stated If you dont KNOW dont post then there are MANY threads YOU shouldn't post on basically anything to do with photography or construction!!!!!
edit on 13-6-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


ahh, too funny...


Obviously reading comprehension is not one of your strong points..

I said this..

If there was that little difference, as you insist, in dynamic pressure at different altitudes,
then airlines would NOT bother flying at over 30000' where the atmosphere in much thinner..
Remember what NASA said Weed and I think they know a damn site more than you..

You replied with this..

You state they would not bother to fly over 30,000 feet due to little difference I gave the reason WHY THEY BOTHER! now DO you understand!

Now, can you spot your comprehension problem?
You are actually arguing in "MY" favor..
edit on 13-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

So were exactly does he fly through the smoke!!

You should be able to answer that question yourself.
I can see it, but you may want to look for a better version of that video that is not so fuzzy.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


ahh, too funny...


Obviously reading comprehension is not one of your strong points..

I said this..

If there was that little difference, as you insist, in dynamic pressure at different altitudes,
then airlines would NOT bother flying at over 30000' where the atmosphere in much thinner..
Remember what NASA said Weed and I think they know a damn site more than you..

You replied with this..

You state they would not bother to fly over 30,000 feet due to little difference I gave the reason WHY THEY BOTHER! now DO you understand!

Now, can you spot your comprehension problem?
You are actually arguing in "MY" favor..
edit on 13-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Sorry but its YOU that doesn`t understand weed said that there wasn't a great difference in the dynamic pressure so you commented then why do they fly at altitudes above 30000 ft well as the engines use less fuel and are more efficient at high altitudes that's why, if they used the same amount of fuel at lower altitude they would fly at that.

Then your comment about no comments if you don't understand the subject would mean a few threads you comment on that require a knowledge of photography and structural engineering YOU should not be commenting on.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

So were exactly does he fly through the smoke!!

You should be able to answer that question yourself.
I can see it, but you may want to look for a better version of that video that is not so fuzzy.




Sorry but YOU seem to have an eyesight problem video from the other side shows the plane didn't have to fly through the smoke!!!



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Mate you logic baffles me and I'm sure many others also.


Think I'll just ignore you...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Mate you logic baffles me and I'm sure many others also.


Think I'll just ignore you...


Well that's up to you don't see what the problem is but I will happily comment on your posts when you have problems understanding photography etc.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Sorry but its YOU that doesn`t understand weed said that there wasn't a great difference in the dynamic pressure so you commented then why do they fly at altitudes above 30000 ft well as the engines use less fuel and are more efficient at high altitudes that's why, if they used the same amount of fuel at lower altitude they would fly at that.


Sorry, I have to ask..

Do you honestly believe that there is NOT a great difference in "dynamic air pressure" given the same velocity, at 1000' as opposed to 30000' ??



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Sorry but its YOU that doesn`t understand weed said that there wasn't a great difference in the dynamic pressure so you commented then why do they fly at altitudes above 30000 ft well as the engines use less fuel and are more efficient at high altitudes that's why, if they used the same amount of fuel at lower altitude they would fly at that.


Sorry, I have to ask..

Do you honestly believe that there is NOT a great difference in "dynamic air pressure" given the same velocity, at 1000' as opposed to 30000' ??



Well when it comes to aircraft and how they work and what they can or cannot do who should have a better idea an experienced flyer of similar size aircraft (weed) or someone who has had a couple of lessons (you).

I will refer you back to this maybe you should listen to yourself!!!


Originally posted by backinblack

Unless you know what you are talking about it's best to keep quite..


Flown many passenger jets then BB thought not



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Well when it comes to aircraft and how they work and what they can or cannot do who should have a better idea an experienced flyer of similar size aircraft (weed) or someone who has had a couple of lessons (you).


You know, tests are pretty standardized when it comes to pilots..
I sat the same or very similar "Aerodynamics" test as Weedwhacker probably did..
Granted, experience helps make a better pilot but here we are talking about something VERY basic and ANYONE that has the slightest knowledge of Aerodynamics would know the answer.

Would you care to answer the question now??
It ain't hard..
edit on 15-6-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Do you honestly believe that there is NOT a great difference in "dynamic air pressure" given the same velocity, at 1000' as opposed to 30000' ??



The final read out of UA 93 's FDR has the plane going 488 knots and accelerating. Its port engine is at 60% power its starboard engine is at 40% power. With a little more time and a little more power it would have grossly exceeded UA175's 510 knots.

Yes the "dynamic air pressure" at 30,000' is less than is at 1000' but to use this as evidence that plane cannot achieve these speeds at low altitude is just plane stupid.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Did anyone see the documentary on Discovery channel which featured an Air France Airbus jumbo jet crash epidemic? I'll cite the narrow parameters the pilots of these craft were facing as their instruments malfunctioned, as portrayed in this television feature.

The pilots were shown in animated form, inside the cockpit. One guy handled the controls while a thousand beeping buzzers sounded. The co-pilot was busy thumbing through a manual. The pilots had NO WAY of guessing or knowing airplane speed, since the pitons were iced up with super cooled moisture (ice). The host repeatedly mentioned that the plane MUST be kept within a 10-15 knot envelope or else the plane would stall, period.

Apparently the pilots couldn't deduce anything from engine rpm, or thrust levels. The show made it look futile for the pilots to do anything but pray. Statistics seem to agree as a whole bunch of these crashes happened.

I kept thinking about that envelope. Too slow? Stall, lose altitude. Too fast? Lose altitude. There was no mistaking this wording. This jet must stay between 450-460 knots or it will begin to stall. The actual knot figure may have been 300, or even 500 knots, in which the airbus is supposed to be stable~it doesn't matter. What matters is that without experience, great experience, most pilots are not going to be able to perform exceptional above specs speed maneuvers.

The pilots in the Airbus documentary were forced to fly blind, while being misinformed by all instruments in the system. Since they had no visual reference (storm over water at night) and no way to guess how fast they were going, they went down. Did the pilots even know how to calculate airspeed by looking at thrust or engine output? I should think they would have been able to do so, and fly. Maybe it's not taught at flight school. Too bad the terrorists that made combat quality turns at record speeds while hitting bullseye's seemed to have thoroughly mastered all aspects of veteran level flight.

Now, if this is true for other jets, this envelope that must be adhered to, doesn't that just add to the difficulty the alleged terrorists crack pilots must have endured?

So, as to the TV documentary~~~all these jumbo jet airbus models crashed, and eventually a computer model gathered enough data to point at the airspeed pitons being iced up, a poor design that allowed supercooling. I think it's odd that a system would be so ill-designed as to mislead every system. If I watch the show once more, I will listen for the narrative that mentions the narrow airspeed envelope.
edit on 15-6-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-6-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by starless and bible black
 


This jet must stay between 450-460 knots or it will begin to stall.


That envelope is just a itsy-bitsy tiny weeny little bit bigger at 1000'.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I wouldn't know if low altitude flight enables pushing envelopes for maneuvering, since I haven't approached flying. Now that you mention it, though, at altitude, economy improves, but not necessarily lift, airspeed, and maneuvering. So, since there's more atmosphere at low levels, there's more to bank off of etc... Yes I see your point, thanks.

This entire subject per OS se escapes my notice since that I can't accept the premises, it's hard to accept the conclusions. It would mean a pepsi can flung at fast enough speed would simply penetrate a steel beam, with no recoil....just..go right through it....





new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 109  110  111    113 >>

log in

join