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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 22
141
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Man, what a massive waste of time.

Answer me this. If there is, as you contend, a single official story of what happened on 9/11, where can I read it?




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


wow thats not even close to rational so ?

its an impossible secret but that really doesnt matter just keep perpetuating the bs story.

theres no truth here is there?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So you have no clue what happens or if anything happens when the plane goes outside its published limits.


I do, a NASA Engineer who designs high performance flight control systems and a member of the AIAA, several 757/767 Capts who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, as well as numerous other highly experienced and verified jet Capts, also "have a clue".


It's because we read the report, understand why limits are set by manufacturers based on flight and wind tunnel tests, and we understand data.

It's clear you don't. Nor are you willing to inform yourself when provided information.

You've been provided all the tools to educate yourself. One can only hold your hand so much. You have to put in some actual effort.


Your whole argument is based around the incredulity of flight 175.


No, it's based on data, precedent, limits set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing, and numerous verified experts.

Your argument is based on nothing but what the govt has told you. Your argument is an argument from incredulity.

Case in point -


The government says that Flight 175 was hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center towers.





Who murdered all those people in the plane and in the building...


That's what we're trying to find out.

So far all he data and information that has been provided conflicts with what the govt claims.

Let us know when you find an aircraft which has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, was controllable/stable, and survived.

www.ntsb.gov...

Thanks!

[edit on 26-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Please Stop the Personal Sniping and Off Topic remarks.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



I do, a NASA Engineer who designs high performance flight control systems and a member of the AIAA, several 757/767 Capts who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, as well as numerous other highly experienced and verified jet Capts, also "have a clue".


So clue everyone else in, exactly what happens when you go over 5? Exactly. You words, not some report on some other flight. Because if thats your answer then well - FAIL! Because your answer is affectively - that its situational and depends on the circumstances, which means that Flight 175 as described is possible. Period.


It's because we read the report, understand why limits are set by manufacturers based on flight and wind tunnel tests, and we understand data.


So share the data - what is the first piece to fail, by how much and why.


It's clear you don't. Nor are you willing to inform yourself when provided information.


So, provide some information. How about the results of those wind tunnel test you reviewed for the components of the 767?


You've been provided all the tools to educate yourself. One can only hold your hand so much. You have to put in some actual effort.


Well, if thats your attitude then good luck with the rest of the world. The burden is on you to prove your point and explain your position. To everyone.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
o clue everyone else in, exactly what happens when you go over 5? Exactly. You words, not some report on some other flight. Because if thats your answer then well - FAIL! Because your answer is affectively - that its situational and depends on the circumstances, which means that Flight 175 as described is possible. Period.


Speed - Scene from "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK"




So share the data


www.abovetopsecret.com...



How about the results of those wind tunnel test....?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Well, if thats your attitude then good luck with the rest of the world.


you too.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by hooper
So you have no clue what happens or if anything happens when the plane goes outside its published limits.


... a NASA Engineer ... several 757/767 Capts ... numerous other ...Capts,


Can you finally ask your bevy of "experts" the questions, please?

1) Do your "colleagues" agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.

I'll add one more, if you don't mind:

Do your "colleagues" agree or disagree with the following statement:

3) The 757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Can you finally ask your bevy of "experts" the questions, please?

1) Do your "colleagues" agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.


What do I look like, your messenger boy?

I already answered the above. Read it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



3) The 757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.


I assume you're cherry picking quotes from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum?

It's good to see your obsession is alive and well.

Why don't you go ask them yourself? I understand you have like 10 socks over there.

Google Aircraft Cartwheel on the way.

Try to stay on topic trebor, this thread isn't about the impact at the Pentagon, It''s about aircraft control leading up to impact and the fact that many experts find it impossible.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

What do I look like, your messenger boy?


One has to wonder about the "boy" part.


I assume you're cherry picking quotes from the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum?

It's good to see your obsession is alive and well.

Why don't you go ask them yourself? I understand you have like 10 socks over there.

Google Aircraft Cartwheel on the way.


I love the "Google this..." that is invariably the Truthers standard answer.


Try to stay on topic trebor, this thread isn't about the impact at the Pentagon, It''s about aircraft control leading up to impact and the fact that many experts find it impossible.


If you could re-read the OP, Cap't "Tiffany", you'd see the referenced article was titled "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training". In that article, both 757s as well as 767s were referenced. The flight of American 77, a Boring 757, into the Pentagon being impossible is one of the core tenants of your PfT web page. It meshes quiet nicely with the discussion we are having now.

If you are not going to pulse your "experts" with the following questions (and I don't blame you - I wouldn't want to ask them those questions either), feel free to provide us with your own take on them.

The first and third questions I asked are direct quotes from your PfT web page, and relate directly to your credibility and the credibility of your "experts".

Question one related to the following question from one of your posters named "Obwon":


Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?


Your answer:


Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.


Which in all honesty is one of the most absolute and hideously wrong answers I can ever imagine to such a question. There have been thousands and thousands of aircraft, all throughout aviation history, that have exceeded their "design limits" and returned safely to earth, many times to fly again.

I suppose we can throw the books out that talk about "metal fatigue" or some other gradual deterioration of structural integrity due to excursions at or beyond the "design limits" of aeronautical platforms. I suppose the two Concorde test beds (aircraft 201 and 202) that were used for high-sped testing, both of which exceeded Vmo of M 2.04 with dashes up to M 2.23 and both of which were retired immediately thereafter and never used to carry passengers because there was no feasible way to determine the remaining service life through structural fatigue at these flights beyond Vmo, should have been fine to enter service as fare-carrying platforms. Fact is, they exceeded Vmo and returned to land - safely.

Speaking of which, it appears that Concorde exceeded Vmo by a rather significant degree yet it did not break. Period.

Question two is my own question. You have not been able to answer it, much less your "experts". I'll take that as a "no, the only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is not the power output of its engines."

Question three deals directly with your credibility and, ergo, the credibility of everything you say here.

A poster named "CuriousGeorge2" opined that if American 77 hit the Pentagon at a 42 degree angle, the right wingtip should have impacted the building first, why did we not see a "curved damage path" into the interior of the building?

Your answer:


There should have been some type of clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle, yet the "impact damage" does not show any signs of such.


And then you (should have stopped right there) rationalized this with the following:


I'm sure youtube has many aircraft crashes which show such a rotational motion at impact.

I've seen it plenty of times when crashing my RC aircraft.


Which means you are equating the crash of a 10 pound radio controlled aircraft flying at 20 feet per second with a 90 ton 757 flying at 750 feet per second.

"Google" mass and momentum and speed and potential and kinetic energy, ad nauseum.

Again, credibility is in question here. Do your "experts" believe the same as you do regarding the aforementioned questions? If you do not want to ask them, what are your thoughts on the aforementioned questions?

[edit on 26-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
One has to wonder about the "boy" part.


Females use that phrase all the time trebor. Try talking to some in real life.


I love the "Google this..." that is invariably the Truthers standard answer.


Hey, you can learn what "Aircraft Cartwheel" means, or don't. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.


If you could re-read the OP, Cap't "Tiffany", you'd see the referenced article was titled "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training". In that article, both 757s as well as 767s were referenced. The flight of American 77, a Boring[sic] 757, into the Pentagon being impossible is one of the core tenants of your PfT web page. It meshes quiet[sic] nicely with the discussion we are having now.


trebor, topic of discussion is aircraft control, not dynamic collisions.

However, I'm not surprised you think there would be no sort of rotational force associated with the alleged Pentagon impact as it appears you are one of those people who feel Newtons Laws were suspended on that day.

But again, I'm flattered you think I'm Rob Balsamo and the founder of such a great site/organization.


...feel free to provide us with your own take on them.


I did. You just need to read it. Click the ATS link in the post above yours.


The first and third questions I asked are direct quotes from your PfT web page, and relate directly to your credibility and the credibility of your "experts".


And yet you refuse to post a source link so we can read the whole exchange in context.

The only logical reason you have refused for more than perhaps 20 times asked, is because you know you are spinning the quotes into deceptive loaded questions.





Also, when a craft exceeds it's design limitations, how long can it be expected to survive?


Your answer:


Again, it's not so much duration rather that when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.



Actually, some aircraft break well before the design limit set by the manufacturer -



Apparently you are not familiar with the purpose of maneuvering speed limitations nor the definition. Google it.

Also note the quotation marks surrounding "design limit" in your un-sourced quote. That should clue you in that your source is talking about the specific object. Not a limit set by the manufacturer.

Again, when an object breaks - it's reached it's "design limit", I suppose you disagree.

EA990 reached it's "design limit" at 5 knots over the manufacturer's set limit. AA587 reached it's "design limit" well below Vmo.

Do you understand what I just said? Read it again.


Real pilots will get it though. Call your local flight school for a lesson.


There have been thousands and thousands of aircraft, all throughout aviation history, that have exceeded their "design limits" and returned safely to earth, many times to fly again.


Well, partially correct - there have been many to exceed the manufacturer's design limit, but never one to exceed the "design limit" specific to that aircraft without losing control, needing 10's of thousands of feet to recover, or crashed. When an aircraft hit's it's own "design limit" it's starts shedding parts. As did EA990 5 knots above Vd and AA587, well below Vmo. I explained this many pages ago.

(Note the quotes again)

Again, there has never been an aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.

www.ntsb.gov...


both of which exceeded Vmo of M 2.04 with dashes up to M 2.23 and both of which were retired immediately thereafter and never used to carry passengers because there was no feasible way to determine the remaining service life through structural fatigue at these flights beyond Vmo,....


Speaking of which, it appears that Concorde exceeded Vmo by a rather significant degree yet it did not break. Period.


.19M translates to roughly 100 over Vmo. You still have another 50 to go trebor.

Do you know how to calculate airspeed from a Mach number? Are you familiar with EAS?

There has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.

The rest of your post has been answered above and on the previous page.

trebor, familiarize yourself with Va, Vd, EAS, Newtons First and Third Laws of Motion, perhaps the term "Aircraft Cartwheel" (to see Newtons laws in effect), perhaps read the EA990 report and certainly read the NTSB Radar study (you didn't even know that the 150 over Vmo claim was made by the NTSB), before you diminish your credibility further.

Also, anytime you wish to post sources for your claimed quotes, please do, so we can read it all in context.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Man, what a massive waste of time.


Tell me about it. You guys are literally arguing with dictionary definitions.


Answer me this. If there is, as you contend, a single official story of what happened on 9/11, where can I read it?


In the reports that I listed, and any other official report issued by any official government agency.


And if you asked me where you could read English literature, I would point you to the hundreds of books that collectively make up English literature. I don't guess you also deny the existence of English literature just because it consists of more than a single source, do you, smart guy?

Well, since you've already shown you can argue with a dictionary and not think twice about it, I already know this post is another waste of time.

The official story exists. Stop crying about it. You just don't want to have to prove any of it, from ANY of the reports, because you already know you wouldn't even know where to start.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Do you notice the difference between "English Literature" and 'The Official Story"? A definite article?

There are a series of reports from dozens of sources which comprise what you call "The OS". They sometimes disagree with each other. As such a single combined narrative does not exist.

The reason you are so keen for there to be one is twofold.

First, it allows you to look for inconsistencies in something that you can require to be definitive even though it is never likely to be.

Second, if you can imply that there is a single "story" underlining every official report then that in itself implies those agencies working in concert. You need it to be true because it confirms your prejudices.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by trebor451
One has to wonder about the "boy" part.


Ok, thanks, Cap't "Tiffany". You have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you are unable to answer the questions submitted, so I'll open it up to the rest of the board commenters.

1) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:


When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.


Please keep in mind all the aircraft throughout aviation history (working on round-abouts 107 years now for powered flight) that have exceeded "design limits" and have returned safely to the earth.


2) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:


The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.


For this question, "aeronautical platform" refers to a powered aircraft as opposed to a glider or some other unpowered aircraft.

Given: The engines on our hypothetical "aeronautical platform" have unlimited thrust or at least enough thrust to push the airframe well beyond its "design limits".


3) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:


The 757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.


Please keep in mind the relationship between mass and weight and the structural integrity of both the aircraft and the building itself. Keep in mind the total weight of the 757, approximately 90 tons, and that 90 tons is made up of approximately 35 tons (70,000 lbs) of titanium, steel and other dense heavy metals spread all throughout the aircraft.

In addition, keep in mind the following data points:

The 757-200 wingspan is 124 feet. Fuselage diameter is 12 feet, which means there is approximately 55 feet of wing per side of the aircraft. Total fuel carried is 11,500 gallons, but an estimated 10,000 gallons was on board at impact. Each wing holds 2,170 gallons and the main fuel tank holds 6,900 gallons. Aircraft fuel systems burn main fuel tank fuel first, so the approximately 1,500 gallons that were burned during flight left approximately 5,400 gallons of fuel per wing and the wing tanks full with 2,170 gallons each.

One gallon of jet aviation fuel (Jet A) weighs approximately 6.84 lbs per gallon, so lets round down to 6 lbs. That means the weight of each wing’s fuel component weighed 13,020 lbs, or a little over 6.5 tons. That would mean you have an 2 airfoil bodies, 55’ feet long weighing at LEAST a total of 13 tons. Traveling at something around 750 feet per second.

Add in the weight of the center fuel tank, which would be 32,000 lbs, or a tad over 16 tons. Add in the aforementioned 30 tons of dense, heavy metal (titanium, steel and other structural metals that are required for an aircraft frame) and you have a significant, extremely heavy structural mass.

Please keep that information in mind when you think that American 77, traveling in a straight line at 750 feet per second, would "cartwheel" in a clockwise manner into the Pentagon structure....because that is what a 10 pound Radio Controlled (RC) Model aircraft does.

One more question, I guess, would fit in.

Should a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) taint any technological analysis or evaluation of any aeronautical event that took place on 9/11/01?

Standing by for any cogent and non-BDS-related discussions.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Ok, thanks, Cap't "Tiffany". You have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you are unable to answer the questions submitted, so I'll open it up to the rest of the board commenters.


Trebor, your questions have been answered, twice. Why haven't you read them?

I'll post the links again since it appears you missed them.



1) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:


When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.


Answers in this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...



2) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:


The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.


Answers in this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...




3) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:


The 757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.


Answers in this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this post -
www.abovetopsecret.com...

trebor - There has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.

Finally, isn't it against ATS forum rules to quote external sources without the source? Why do you refuse to post sources for your external quotes?

The only logical reason you have refused for more than perhaps 21 times asked, is because you know you are spinning the quotes into deceptive loaded questions.


trebor, familiarize yourself with Va, Vd, EAS, Newtons First and Third Laws of Motion, perhaps the term "Aircraft Cartwheel" (to see Newtons laws in effect), perhaps read the EA990 report and certainly read the NTSB Radar study (you didn't even know that the 150 over Vmo claim was made by the NTSB), before you diminish your credibility further.


(by the way, Jet-A rule of thumb is 6.7. Again, call you local flight school for a lesson before your credibility diminishes further. You hardly have any left.)

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



trebor - There has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.


Again, please provide the database of ALL flights of ALL crafts in ALL the history of manned aviation.

Do you not understand that you are making an absolute statement by saying "never"? That would include ALL flights. You would need to know exactly what happpened in ALL flights to state that anything "never" happened.

What you could say accurately is "I (meaning you) have never heard of one aircraft....". This would be closer to the point. We will ignore for now that little blurb about "positively", because, as everyone knows all planes involved in 9/11 were positively identified. Your personal objections aside and, of course, irrelevant.

Ever get that Vg diagram for a 767?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper



trebor - There has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.


Again, please provide the database of ALL flights of ALL crafts in ALL the history of manned aviation.


I provided this link for you 5 times. Click it.

www.ntsb.gov...

If an aircraft exceeded it's Vmo by any large margin, it will be published in the above database.

Again, there have been many which exceeded 20-30-40-50-70... even 100. Many lost control, many needed 10's of thousands of feet to recover, many crashed.

Let us know when you find one which exceeded 150 over Vmo, was controllable/stable and survived.




Ever get that Vg diagram for a 767?


Funny you ask -



if you can get the the following data you can draw it

Vs1, Vmo, design limit load; you can draw it


Source -
www.pprune.org...
(don't mind me, I like Happy Days as well
)

Hooper - It appears you're the only one who thinks a V-G Diagram cannot be plotted when the V-Seeds are known.

Again hooper, are you claiming Vra/Va, Vmo, and Vd are not represented in the correct spot on the following graph as defined by the manufacturer for a 767? If so, you would be wrong.

(Remember to use the horizontal scroll bar on bottom to scroll right for full graph)




[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



I provided this link for you 5 times. Click it.


And for the fifth or tenth time you prove that you don't understand the mist rudimentary concepts of logic and language.

When you say something "never" happened, then you have to prove it "never" happened, which is basically proving a negative.

Which has never happened.

So your whole argument is the fruit of a foul tree. It is based on the mistaken assumption that you, for the first time in history, have proven a negative and even more strangely you are asking others to disprove it. Wow, you must be some kind of pilot because you are out in the ozone.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And for the fifth or tenth time you prove that you don't understand the mist rudimentary concepts of logic and language.



hooper - I think you may be confused with the terminology I used as it's already been proven you know less than a student pilot.

Replace "Positively identified" with "documented" in the following statement.

There has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.

Here - read it this way.

There has never been one aircraft DOCUMENTED to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.

Makes sense to you now?

Again hooper, let us know when you find one.

The only one which correlates to the alleged south tower aircraft, broke apart at 5 knots into the red zone you see on the above V-G diagram representing 767 speeds.

Hooper, - do you still think it's impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V Speeds are known? You may want to go over to pprune and inform the pilots over there.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



There has never been one aircraft DOCUMENTED to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived. Let us know when you find one.


Just point me in the direction of that document database of ALL flights in ALL the history of aviation.

You don't seem to get the "never" part, do you?


Besides, its all a moot point anyway. The whole premise is nonsensical. You think you can prove that flight 175 was something other than a hijacked common commercial flight because you think it was going too fast. Please prove why it was physically impossible, not why it exceed manufacturers recommendations for operations.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You, and this "150 knots" baloney, yet again???

Tell everyone, please. The EXACT site and authority that presents that figure.

B-767 VMO = 360 KIAS

ADD 150 kts, and the figure is now 510 KIAS. I asked, earlier. (not sure if there was an answer, it is painful to scan through posts...and that bright orange/red thing keeps popping up, like SPAM....ow! It hurts....)


I asked WHERE it is alleged that the UAL 175's ground speed was 510 knots. (The GS would be almost the same as airspeed, at that altitude).

There is a thread here on ATS that derived a more accurate idea of velocity, based on video examination. Is this "510 knots" coming from the ATC radar data? Reason I bring it up, it is important to keep the UNITS clear....the terms "MPH" and "knots" get tossed around, and mixed up, so that non-pilots might confuse the two.

BTW...510 knots = 587 MPH.


AND...refute THIS:

www.911myths.com...



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join