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.

 

At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 :

page: 10
116
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
What citations are there of this? Or, is it just a bit of imaginative thinking? Can you point to any indications in the activities, behaviour, and radio communications to ATC that would lend credence to this presumption?


Of course there are none. It's just typical truther imagination and intrigue, that's all.


....(t)hey did not know that a simple mechanical remote-control was build-in their plane....



Originally posted by ProudBird
?
This is even worse speculation, to tell the truth. You have learnt a lot about the INUs and IRS units (though, as I read, I still see a few misconceptions that could use some clarifications) but, in order to fully educate you (and the audience) about the implausibility of a "remote-control" aspect that implies some "take-over" form ground sources, well......suffice to say, emphatically NO!

Short-hand reason is, any such device (that was not installed, mind you) would of necessity require electrical power in order to function. There isn't a trained and qualified B757/767 pilot out there who wouldn't know how to remove ALL electrics from the systems, and thereby disable any such device (that was not installed, anyhow). The B-757/767 can fly just fine without electrical systems energized. No pilot would allow the airplane to "fly him".


You are absolutely correct. Plus based on the aircraft's schedule there was no time to do this type of imagined installation anyway. Plus, this would also require numerous folks at American Airlines to be "in on the conspiracy" to include the pilots (perhaps numerous depending on when they think it was installed) who would have certainly detected such an imaginary device.

This type of delusion is typical for truthers who have little or no knowledge of the procedures and intricacies of Airline operations or of the mechanics of how such a device could even possibly be installed or operated. It is simply imaginary claptrap to propagate the conspiracy....
edit on 5-10-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I'd like to introduce you to a (sorry, it's YouTube) video that may go a long way to explaining the apparent CIT witness anomalies......and, how they may possibly have been corrupted/subverted/massaged in order to fit into the CIT agenda, and their goal of pushing forward their "North of Citgo" baloney:





posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
I have many more witnesses who did not see that plane where you want it to be.
See my PfT nine pages long thread.


I don't WANT the aircraft to be anywhere, but where it has been conclusively proven to have been. 3 radar stations, the FDR, a damage path both outside and inside the building, and some witnesses all point to a consistent flight path into the building.

Witnesses can be mistaken (I sound like a broken record) and without a frame of reference I'm sure many of them were. You don't know how to interpret what they said, yet are elevating their importance to the exclusion of all of the other incontrovertible evidence to promote your version of a conspiracy. That's bassackwards.

Regarding Boger.... He was an ex-Army controller not Navy. He was a civilian employed by the Army at the Helipad at the Pentagon. For his entire career he was accustomed to observing and controlling helicopters, not Airliners nor any other fast moving aircraft. Due to the angular configuration of the landmarks it would have been very easy for him to have been confused. It would be the first time someone has been confused by angular perceptions. He is convinced the aircraft struck the building as we all know it did. Why are you smarter and more knowledgeable than him?

I have no idea of the flight path you are proposing as your verbose writing style does not lend itself to be easily understood. I am not going to pffft to read it, so either post it here as a diagram or I won't address it. If it is of interest to me I'll address it. It should be a comprehensive path supported by multiple lines of evidence, not just your interpretation of some witness statements. GO.....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Proudbird, you should read my PfT thread (see link in OP, or a link to its page 8 a few posts up, at the bottom, then switch to page 3 I believe, to read about a false FDR ).
Then your solid believe that a FDR can not be falsified will be shattered.

Search for the Mullhouse incident in France, with one of the first Airbus planes.
They overlooked a photograph which showed two boxes in the hands of the Accident Investigator being taken away from the crash scene, they were different from the two ones shown to the judges at the trial in France. (CVR and FDR)
Airbus and a few governments involved in Airbus, especially the French, did not want to disturb the just opened bidding for the newly constructed Airbus planes.
It was a software fault, the plane could not be pulled out of a landing very near to the ground, it landed in the trees at the end of the runway.
But some people in high enough places got their hands first on that FDR, which was absent for a few days, until it turned up on a police station desk again, but now it was the Captains and the FO who got the blame.
The FO admitted after a long time, to keep his job.
The Captain never did and asked for help of the Swiss government, who gave the investigation to a well known Judicial Investigation office at a Swiss University. They got that photo send, and then the case was suddenly closed.
The captain however, never flew again.....
Do you still trust all you learned?

If you read from the beginning about the "black" boxes at the Pentagon, you will notice the possibility of disappearance for a while, of these boxes. Altering a small piece of the FDR is not difficult, for profs. Especially when you have done it before....
Please do not start the same old story, of wandering away from the main subject here:
Straight line or arced line into the Pentagon, in the last 20 seconds.
Stay focused.

I say arced. And lots of people who were there, too.

Please imagine that you are one of these guys and gals who witnessed a plane in a totally different flight path than your government and its institutions propagate, with heaps of so called proof.

But you are sure you saw it at a totally different spot.
Would you scream to your newspaper? If you are a clever citizen, you keep your mouth stiff shut, you choose for family and income, because you understand very well you never ever can win against the Moloch that your government has become.
How many of these real witnesses are still lurking in the shadows, seeing what happened to the few ones who did get audible?
The US history after WWII is full of sudden dead witnesses of historical events.
RIP Barry ! Witnessed explosions in WTC 7, was a middle class, good guy!
His co-witness is now the main associate of former mayor Giuliani....

Lagasse and Brooks are lucky, they were video taped while they had no clue at all why their statements were so important. Thus, it spread all over the Internet, and it had no sense to let them have an "accident".
But for sure they will never talk anymore about what they saw on 9/11, if they are clever. And so to see, they are.


the implausibility of a "remote-control" aspect

Battery packs plus radio-controls. Connected to strong servos which can be placed on rudder and ailerons.
By any mechanics planted in the ground crew. Read the FBI reports of the interviews with them, I posted in my OP.
One guy complained that a guy who had just begun working, was suddenly absent after 9/11. Had a Middle-eastern name. Known trick of the MOSSAD, use of Arabic names to put the blame later, on the wrong ones.
Remote control from aboard other airplanes in the vicinity. C-130.

And please, it was obvious what was my MAIN point :
1. Far on top of possible scenarios : Steer real terrorists and facilitate their plans, very subtle. Nearly no proof ever.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Proudbird, you should read my PfT thread (see link in OP, or a link to its page 8 a few posts up, at the bottom, then switch to page 3 I believe, to read about a false FDR ).
Then your solid believe that a FDR can not be falsified will be shattered.


Total BS! The French FDR was an analog one not an SSFDR. Easy to modify a tape versus solid state. More Ballswallow poppycock.....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
SolidState FDR = a memory stick.
How many times did you write to your memory sticks?

And the main point of course is the fact that an FDR has been falsified, and to how high the investigative lines were leading. Until the order came from very high, to stop investigating.....
edit on 5/10/11 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Pure fantasy, sorry:


Battery packs plus radio-controls. Connected to strong servos which can be placed on rudder and ailerons.
By any mechanics planted in the ground crew.


If you would care to research more into the design and actual hydro/mechanical details of the Boeing 757/767 family flight control systems, you would then understand why it is a fantastical claim. Oh, and the electrical system, while you're on about it.....

The best thing in order for better comprehension would be a full course on the airplane....all the ground school at least, you would skip the flying part in the simulators, since you aren't a pilot. Spend about four to six weeks studying, and that would be just scratching the surface of understanding......(and, it's not cheap either, so.....might be a luxury "wish list" item).

PS: The rudder is hardly used in flight, in normal operations. It operates mostly under the auspices of the Yaw Damper, an automated feature that is an "always on" type of autoflight system ("always on" meaning, whenever it is selected to the "On" position, via the cockpit overhead panel switches (**) of course, and providing it has no system flaws to prevent its proper operation).

The rudder is called upon mostly in cross-wind situations, for take-offs and landings....and, is essential in assymetric thrust conditions, such as an engine failure, or partial power loss on one engine.


(**) Feel free to gain familiarization at your leisure with that B-757 overhead panel, for starters:

www.flickr.com...

Yaw Damper switches are located just forward (that's "below" when viewing the photo image) of the IRU control panel, which you are no doubt accustomed to seeing already.



edit on Wed 5 October 2011 by ProudBird because: Text



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
SolidState FDR = a memory stick.
How many times did you write to your memory sticks?


Source please....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by LaBTop
I have many more witnesses who did not see that plane where you want it to be.
See my PfT nine pages long thread.


I don't WANT the aircraft to be anywhere, but where it has been conclusively proven to have been. 3 radar stations, the FDR, a damage path both outside and inside the building, and some witnesses all point to a consistent flight path into the building.

LT : Not all, and these are damn difficult to counter :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

--- snip---

Regarding Boger.... snip -- He is convinced the aircraft struck the building as we all know it did. Why are you smarter and more knowledgeable than him?

LT : I am also convinced the aircraft struck the building, as I told you numerous times now. It was the reason why Balsamo got a tad bit excited about me, remember? And Boger was for years a flight controller. He got an education as such. Now he suddenly is unreliable? A bit thin argument.

I have no idea of the flight path you are proposing as your verbose writing style does not lend itself to be easily understood. I am not going to pffft to read it, so either post it here as a diagram or I won't address it. If it is of interest to me I'll address it. It should be a comprehensive path supported by multiple lines of evidence, not just your interpretation of some witness statements. GO.....

LT: I posted it now already a few times here, on page 1, 8 and 9.
Well, here we go again :
Viable flightpath at 200 KTS :
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Years old flightpath proposal, with a change to another turn radius after passing the CITGO :
files.abovetopsecret.com...
If this one is possible at all, I still got no answer yet.
I do not believe that all pilots take off, set a fixed turn radius exactly towards their next airport, and leave it to the autopilot. There is a lot of manual and/or automatic steering involved.And wind drift, loss of weight by burning jet fuel away, and heaps of other influences.



You know, it seems there is no other wide body former pilot on this forum, who is able to look at the matter from a neutral point of view. Perhaps Weedwhacker.
So I have to do it with you. If you do not want to go to my ONLY thread at PfT, so be it. I am not going to post 9 pages of extensive information here, and get banned because of some ATS rules violation.

In short, Penny Elgas was interviewed by the guy from the PumpItOut forum, and they both seemed to do their utterly best to avoid the question where exactly she stood with her car in front of the Pentagon. Which should have been the very first question to ask her. BUT, you can extract that position from her words at interviews with the Army History Unit and some more. She stood just 30 meters in front of the two trees which were standing in front of the Helipad. She then said she watched the plane cross the road (Route 27) just 30 yards or so, in front of her.
That does not fit your official straight line.
Miss Peterson stood in front of those 2 trees, and said the plane flew right over her head.
That does not fit your official straight line.
Vin Narayaran stood just a few meters beside Penny, and did see the plane cross just in front of him.
That does not fit your official straight line.

Let someone go to that thread, copy it and send it to you. There is much much more in there, that's why Balsamo got so damn nervous, because they could not counter the arguments, and then his first reaction is to SILENTLY ban you.
He loves their fly-over myth.

The PumpItOut owner has an extensive page full of phone interviews with eyewitnesses, and even when he really does his best to avoid placement questions, you can extract from other remarks from all these witnesses, that a lot of the important ones were not situated where he and the newspapers want you to believe they were.
I give enough good reasons to let you start wondering, and that should be enough to want to see my info in those 9 pages. Posting there against all resistance was not nice.

You want the official line to be true, I want the official line to be true (so I can sleep again), but I can't throw away viable witnesses, the way you can. And then it keeps nagging at me, and I keep digging, always in the hope to find proof that the government is not lying to us.

Well, this was the first instance that I succeeded. Gate D26. At least that was true. Proved to myself as concrete truth.
Which does not mean that I trust the rest......There are a lot of things unexplained in the RADES radar data. An exceptional amount of hidden and official MILITARY planes in the Washington airspace around 9 to 10 AM, while they told us all these years how difficult it was for them to launch any armed or unarmed fighters.
They changed in mid air to military.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
www51.honeywell.com...(SSFDR).pdf


SOLID-STATE FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
SOLID-STATE FDR PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The Solid-State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR) combines the extremely high reliability of integrated circuit memory technology with the most advanced protective enclosure in the industry.

The SSFDR is the most modern available, incorporating the latest interface characteristics defined in ARINC Project Paper 747. Aircraft interfaces include one (1) ARINC-717 Harvard Bi-Phase input for receiving flight data from the aircraft's Flight Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU).
The SSFDR also includes provisions for two ARINC-429 interfaces as defined in ARINC-747; one is reserved for future copying of the FDR's recorded data to an Airborne Data Loader, and the second is provided for new generation aircraft equipped with Onboard Maintenance Systems.
Extensive micro-processor based built-in-test greatly simplifies test and trouble shooting, thereby minimizing technician training and support equipment costs.
The SSFDR provides an interface for high speed readout of its memory while onboard the aircraft.
Readout time is under 5 minutes for the 1X model, under 10 minutes for the 2X model, and under 20 minutes for the 4X model.


Integrated circuit memory is used in f.ex. memory sticks and computer parts.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Which does not mean that I trust the rest......There are a lot of things unexplained in the RADES radar data.


What, for example? Why do you need an explanation for what Radar shows. In most instances there are multiple radars which show the same thing.


Originally posted by LaBTop
An exceptional amount of hidden and official MILITARY planes in the Washington airspace around 9 to 10 AM, while they told us all these years how difficult it was for them to launch any armed or unarmed fighters.


Hidden aircraft? How do you know about them then? Both armed and unarmed fighters were launched. What's so strange about military aircraft being airborne in the US National Airspace? They are there all of the time. In fact, I've flown in and out of Andrews AFB and Langley AFB several times. Why do you find that strange?

Your last statement which I've omitted makes no sense at all.
edit on 5-10-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
www51.honeywell.com...(SSFDR).pdf


SOLID-STATE FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
SOLID-STATE FDR PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The Solid-State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR) combines the extremely high reliability of integrated circuit memory technology with the most advanced protective enclosure in the industry.

The SSFDR is the most modern available, incorporating the latest interface characteristics defined in ARINC Project Paper 747. Aircraft interfaces include one (1) ARINC-717 Harvard Bi-Phase input for receiving flight data from the aircraft's Flight Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU).
The SSFDR also includes provisions for two ARINC-429 interfaces as defined in ARINC-747; one is reserved for future copying of the FDR's recorded data to an Airborne Data Loader, and the second is provided for new generation aircraft equipped with Onboard Maintenance Systems.
Extensive micro-processor based built-in-test greatly simplifies test and trouble shooting, thereby minimizing technician training and support equipment costs.
The SSFDR provides an interface for high speed readout of its memory while onboard the aircraft.
Readout time is under 5 minutes for the 1X model, under 10 minutes for the 2X model, and under 20 minutes for the 4X model.


Integrated circuit memory is used in f.ex. memory sticks and computer parts.


How you get a memory stick out of that is perhaps only known to you. Of course it's digital, but the exact media is not mentioned. There are hundreds of parameters recorded in the FDR, many of which correlate with each other. How and why did that happen and what evidence is there that makes you think data was falsified?



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


If I understand you correctly you're touting that curved / arced CIT path from Paik to NOC to the impact point. Is that correct? If so, I've already shown you that to fly that would require and absolute minimum of 53 degrees of bank even under your prescribed conditions. If we move the impact point to where it actually was, the bank angle is about 60 degrees required. Why did none of your witnesses describe that awesome bank? If they had seen that they would have never forgotten it. Don't you find that a bit strange?

If you want the aircraft to fly at landing speeds it must be at a speed high enough to avoid a stall at 50-60 degrees of bank ALL OF THE WAY TO THE IMPACT POINT. There is NO WAY it can maintain any lesser bank angle unless it compensates with larger bank angles later in the flight path. NO WAY it can roll out of that kind of bank/turn prior to the impact into the building....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I'm not sure what neutrality has to do with aerodynamic facts. BTW, The B-757 is not a widebody aircraft. It sounds as if Proud Bird could provide another input if that's what you need. Don't let me stop you from finding another opinion, EXCEPT some idiot from pfffft.....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


""The best thing in order for better comprehension would be a full course on the airplane""

May I direct you back to the last page 9, to my post you seemed to have missed :
REFERENCES :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do appreciate however your effort to school us, since that is what I am really looking for, and what we can not get enough from here, daily practical experience in the Seats.
Or info from an experienced Aviation Mechanic.

I see no reason why my proposal for a steady turn radius at an initial speed of 200 KTS up till a hundred or two meters in front of the crossing point over Route 27 could not work.
In science, when you have multiple readouts, you may draw a line through all points to construct a mean line covering all measured data as best as can be. That's what we should do here too, a trajectory drawn through all witness positions, and the best I can come up with is this 200 KTS one.
It covers also all the CITGO, Cemetery and Route 27 witnesses and the plane flies in a slow low swallow bank angle of 22°.

Just as Reheat remarked, it is for people on the ground very difficult to make an estimate of real speed flown by a very low passing plane. Those 200 knots (230 MPH) will leave an impression of a screeching immense huge low flying plane which zaps over or past you in an instant.
There's a big difference if you see the plane somewhere above you, like Morin and Paik, or from the side, like Sgts Brooks and Lagasse, they had more time to make an estimation of height and other details.

When you ask people to make an estimate how high a plane is flying, most people with no experience are way off.
I always ask them to give an estimate how big it seems in cm.
They always come up first with a few cm, at a known by me height of 10 km. Then I ask them to measure the plane in the sky with index and thumb, and they are always perplexed by the fact that it is just about 5 to 8 millimeter wide in between their own fingers.

But low flying planes at air shows are reasonably good measured in by the same people.
And this plane flew damn low.
Sgt Lagasse said he could see the window shades down or up, one of the two. That means he was damn near it, to see such details.

EDIT : forgot to thank you for that B757 overhead panel with added notes what it all means.
Good info, easily comprehensible.
edit on 5/10/11 by LaBTop because: Thanks for the descriptive overhead panel picture.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by LaBTop
An exceptional amount of hidden and official MILITARY planes in the Washington airspace around 9 to 10 AM, while they told us all these years how difficult it was for them to launch any armed or unarmed fighters.


Hidden aircraft? How do you know about them then? Both armed and unarmed fighters were launched. What's so strange about military aircraft being airborne in the US National Airspace? They are there all of the time. In fact, I've flown in and out of Andrews AFB and Langley AFB several times. Why do you find that strange?

Your last statement which I've omitted makes no sense at all.


I meant aircraft set off from civilian airports, squawking a civilian code, which changed in mid air that code to a military one, and then landed on a military base. And military planes which squawked military code, then changed to civilian and landed on military bases.
Is that normal every day behavior?

It means that someone like PfT member Tumetuesfaisdubien meticulously is analyzing the 80RADES radar data sheets, and comes up with these eventual anomalies.
I have to be careful with you regarding any PfT subject, it seems to work as a red flag on a Spanish bull.
But realize that probably still a group of reasonable sane people are flocking in that forum, and in my opinion this is one of the very sane ones.
I will look his texts up for you, it's quite interesting Sisyphus Labor he is doing for many months already.
I can only read as a guest there, just as you or any other non-member, which means that you have to copy/paste all links, and do the text formatting again, like the poster did before posting.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
How you get a memory stick out of that is perhaps only known to you. Of course it's digital, but the exact media is not mentioned. There are hundreds of parameters recorded in the FDR, many of which correlate with each other. How and why did that happen and what evidence is there that makes you think data was falsified?


Let's call it : Basically a memory stick. It is a chip instead of a tape. Nothing out of the ordinary. Just fortified to live after a heavy plane crash.
Still, you can write to and extract from it.

The evidence which makes me critical of that last part of the FDR, are the witnesses you so easily brush off.
The CITGO ones especially, but also all the other ones, which describe a flight path which definitely does not fit in the last 20 seconds of the retrieved FDR.
And your arguments are thin. Witnesses are not always unreliable. Some details can be unreliable, but the meat of the matter is mostly correct.
One witness is a weak argument, but 20 witnesses are a strong argument, as long as their statements corroborate each other.

I have looked extensively into the FDR data, and they are not so difficult to understand, and with some help from pilots and mechanics we can come very far in decoding that heap of data into a kind of tech-story of the last 20 seconds of that plane.

There are two FOIA-released FDR-sources, the PfT source decoded by UnderTow a few years ago, and the Warren Stutt one, which I find easier to read and which has all the previous 10 or so flights decoded too.
And who discovered 4 extra seconds of data in there at the very end, which get more and more garbled up, until it becomes unreliable.
That is also a mystery for me, what could cause those last 4 seconds to become so garbled up? The plane was still flying, hitting nothing.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

I meant aircraft set off from civilian airports, squawking a civilian code, which changed in mid air that code to a military one, and then landed on a military base. And military planes which squawked military code, then changed to civilian and landed on military bases.
Is that normal every day behavior..


My reply to this kind of crap is Bull Sheet. Double unmitigated Bull Sheet. I've seen this guys garbage before it is Bull Sheet. That you buy this kind of crap says more about you than 100 post of more Bull Sheet.....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by LaBTop
 


If I understand you correctly you're touting that curved / arced CIT path from Paik to NOC to the impact point. Is that correct? If so, I've already shown you that to fly that would require and absolute minimum of 53 degrees of bank even under your prescribed conditions. If we move the impact point to where it actually was, the bank angle is about 60 degrees required. Why did none of your witnesses describe that awesome bank? If they had seen that they would have never forgotten it. Don't you find that a bit strange?

If you want the aircraft to fly at landing speeds it must be at a speed high enough to avoid a stall at 50-60 degrees of bank ALL OF THE WAY TO THE IMPACT POINT. There is NO WAY it can maintain any lesser bank angle unless it compensates with larger bank angles later in the flight path. NO WAY it can roll out of that kind of bank/turn prior to the impact into the building....



Yes, Reheat, that is the picture I myself made, not the CIT boys.

Just testing the new Tools/Upload feature, to see if clicking that thumbnail works for you, so you get the full scale picture in a new tab, then repeatably clicking CTRL plus the + sign (EU : Hold down "Strg" and click "+" ) lets you enlarge that picture in your Firefox browser, again about 8 times :

files.abovetopsecret.com...





Did you forget I proposed a new speed of 200 Knots as the initiating speed for the turn?
Which gave a bank angle of 22° for a turn radius of 2.7 kilometer (8806.9 feet).
Stall speed 160 KTS, turn diameter 3.3 miles, G-load 1.1 Gs.
That 2.7 kilometer is then the length of those 5 blue colored radius-lines sprouting from the center-point.

Here is the blank picture without the radius lines, but with the centerpoint, then you can show me your ideas, or someone else who can construct that with Paint.
Since I really want to see where you thought the impact point of the nose cone of AA77 was situated, and how your arc looks like, the one with at least a 53° bank angle but with a restricted radius of 2.7 km :





files.abovetopsecret.com...

I suppose the plane flying in 22° right bank configuration can now much easier change back to about level flight. However, take in account it impacted with the right wing tilted up for about 8°.
So, just 14° left bank correction to level off needed during a few hundred meters in front of Route 27.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Very good, I had missed this:


May I direct you back to the last page 9, to my post you seemed to have missed :
REFERENCES :



That is a start for you. Keep reading, I can clear up any questions. Still and all, without a fairly solid background of experience as a pilot...talking about a lot of disciplines to learn, step-by-step in increasing complexity... before one can fully assimilate and comprehend a Boeing 757.

Additionally, merely reading the material is a sort of "armchair" version of learning....sometimes referred to as "hangar flying", but that is more about pilots who know how to fly, shooting the breeze about flying.

(...or, maybe fishing...." I caught a trout the other day, and it was this big!!!"
)


Point is that all of that book reading is only part of it....what is missing is the practical experience (as it's called)....meaning actual hands-on. Which you recognize, I see...good again.

Compare it, simplistically, to first being introduced to driving a car. (Presume, also, that one has no prior experience in the front seat of any moving vehicle. Only experience is as a passenger, with only a side window view, and then only occasionally). Read about it all one wants, take months or years...but, as you noted, until one actually has the hands-on feelings, the sensations, the motor skills formed, one's learning is not complete.



Or info from an experienced Aviation Mechanic.


Exactly!! Good thoughts, too.

I neglected to point out in the previous post and discussion (the suggestion regarding the "radio control" implementation somehow being installed without anyone aware) that an experienced mechanic would also refute the notion.

Further, in a perfect world, (if I had my way), one would be able to take any doubters personally up to a real airplane, and let them see with their own eyes, the impracticality and implausibility of the idea.

For instance....to build in some sort of additional servo-actuators to move the controls. Most likely locations for this on the B-757 would be in the wheel wells. This is where the physically-connected cables from the Flight Deck controls are routed, and attached to hydraulic valves that port the system pressures to the appropriate hydraulic actuators out near the control surfaces....ailerons, elevators and rudder. Any "foreign" item in there would be immediately apparent. It is part of the pre-flight "walk-around" conducted by a pilot, before each departure, as well as mechanics, in airline operations. Sometimes you have more than two sets of eyes scrutinizing the airplane before flight.

I searched online for photos of a B-757 wheel well, no joy so far. Here is a B-737, bit more crowded of course, but the interior of the wells is similar, if not exactly the same. And, whilst it looks a mess, when you know your airplane, you know what everything in there is:



Of course, if there were a desire to retro-fit install some sort of autonomous or remote control apparatus, it would not be "impossible", given sufficient man-hours of design and development, followed by many more hours of installation, testing, tweaking, more testing, etc. Certainly not a "lone" mechanic doing it overnight, when no one is looking!!



new topics

top topics



 
116
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join