Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

page: 59
20
<< 56  57  58    60  61 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Sad to hear that....




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Very kind of you to say....

Hey, people die. It's a fact of "life"....I just helped a friend go to collect his dead father, with some of my airline reward miles....OT, but what the hell??



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
As for fluttering, I was quoting Legge/Stutt:


The vertical acceleration shows a curious pattern. It is not possible for the plane to be controlled in such a way as to produce a motion with the observed high frequency of reversal. It therefore seems likely that some part of the plane is fluttering, as occurs with excessive speed. It is interesting that this does not appear till about 4.5 seconds before impact, at which point the plane has accelerated to about 470 knots, significantly above the “maximum dive velocity”, 410 knots. As fluttering will eventually damage or destroy an aircraft, this observation may give an indication of the size of the air speed safety margin, a figure which does not appear to be available to the public.


I assume this can be added to or improved, but as we know, flights can suffer structural damage due to flight envelope excess and still land:



Source



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Very kind of you to say....

Hey, people die. It's a fact of "life"....I just helped a friend go to collect his dead father, with some of my airline reward miles....OT, but what the hell??


It's harsh, but yeah.

I've been reading about 9/11 victims, their families, survivors and first responders for about a decade and each story tends to affect me whether I want to or not, even while I'm forced to ponder the victims of the subsequent 9/11 wars.

Death is a disease, and it's evident to me from the brutal way 9/11 happened that there are instances where we are forced to remember just how powerless and fragile we are in the presence of such cataclysmic horror.

I've had my own painful experiences with death recently, but as you know, everything you share will be used against you by the gaggle of psychos who fancy themselves warriors for 9/11 justice.
edit on 3-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
As for fluttering, I was quoting Legge/Stutt:


With apologies to ProudBird, I think that is fluttering of the tail surface, as well. That is too rapid to be be Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO). There was an earlier period where he did get into a PIO, but not this. He simply could not move the controls rapidly enough to produce that. Fluttering due to the excessive speed is my call....

ETA: And I've seen that type of damage shown in the photo above. The F-111F was speed restricted for a period of time due to an engine problem. After the restriction was lifted the aircraft were then test flown a high speed. I've seen rudder surfaces eaten away like that, which occurred at about Mach 2. The outer surface was distorted and the honeycomb structure beneath was then eaten away... All landed safely, but it will certainly get ones attention..
edit on 3-1-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by snowcrash911
As for fluttering, I was quoting Legge/Stutt:


With apologies to ProudBird, I think that is fluttering of the tail surface, as well. That is too rapid to be be Pilot Induced Oscillations (PIO). There was an earlier period where he did get into a PIO, but not this. He simply could not move the controls rapidly enough to produce that. Fluttering due to the excessive speed is my call....


It must also be said that Hanjour flew like an idiot though...

On a different note, do you remember that Israeli pilot who landed his F-15 with one wing missing after a mid-air collision?




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
The above... without proof, would have been deemed "impossible" by conspiracy theorists (understandably), because it presumably violates all "laws of physics" and, as a result, a "conspiracy" would be alleged, because what happened would be deemed "impossible".

I call this "falsification-speculation". First you assert something is "impossible", then you swap out the impossibility of one narrative with whatever story you deem "more likely".

I'm sure there will be folks who can invent a conspiracy around this incident just as they invent a conspiracy around AA 77, merely because they believe that anything seemingly impossible justifies replacement with any baseless fantasy which fits a certain agenda.

Reality is stranger than fiction. And notions of "scientific certainty" promoted by laymen or even "experts" are to be looked at with skepticism. This is why positive evidence for a conspiracy should be sought instead of negative evidence.
edit on 3-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
On a different note, do you remember that Israeli pilot who landed his F-15 with one wing missing after a mid-air collision?


Yes, of course, I'm familiar. That could only have happened in an F-15. It can only occur where there is excessive power and a body which produces lift. If you'll look at the body shape you'll note that it is built to produce lift as does the wings. All of the modern fighters are built like that, but it must be accompanied with enough brute power, excellent skill and a whole lot of luck, as well



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Yup, and this is why I totally disregard the whining about 757 flight envelope... the plane might as well have been disintegrating on the way to the Pentagon... it was going to crash anyway. Same for UA 175.

It's a damn shame we don't have the FDRs for AA 11 and UA 175.
edit on 3-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
On a different note, do you remember that Israeli pilot who landed his F-15 with one wing missing after a mid-air collision?

Spend some time studying Burnelli aircraft to learn why this was possible. Very unlikely that it could be done with the much weaker, less stable and fuel hungry tube and wing type that are in general use.

Anyone with an interest in aircraft I say again.

Study Burnelli aircraft.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
Spend some time studying Burnelli aircraft to learn why this was possible. Very unlikely that it could be done with the much weaker, less stable and fuel hungry tube and wing type that are in general use.

Anyone with an interest in aircraft I say again.

Study Burnelli aircraft.


Hanjour didn't land did he? And post links, it helps.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester
Very unlikely that it could be done with the much weaker, less stable and fuel hungry tube and wing type that are in general use.


This happened to a 747:



Source

It landed.
edit on 3-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


THIS was the Air China incident wasn't it??:

(I can go on for PAGES about that, and insert my valued opinions!)



This happened to a 747:



Jeebus!! I went "round and round" with a certain person, on his "GLORY WEBSITE" a few years ago, on that....and ALSO on Egypt Air 990

Oh the idocity (is that word?? IF not it should be!!) spewed time and again from tne keystrokes of the "OWNER" of that "other-site"...which we shall henceforth dub 'Voldemort'.......

In BOTH those cases, although the outcomes were vastly different....it was a testament to the way that the Boeing Company built their airplanes...in terms of the structural integrity, even if after they had sustained some damage in flight....

THIS, of course, is LOST to the comprehension of "Voldemort....or, He Who Shall Not Be Named!!" (and his silly little website, which shall also remain nameless)....the "Cloak of Invisibility" is too good for that site.

Sorry....had to be said....Long Live Harry Potter!!!!!...... (sigh)>>>>>>>
edit on Tue 3 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Thanks for reminding me of Egypt Air 990, That's another one where he tells a half truth accompanied by blind speculation to fit his agenda... He said the aircraft broke up in mid air and he specified the speed (which he could not possible know) and that the proof of this was that there were two debris fields proving a breakup. That was a half truth lie.

There was a fight for control in the cockpit to keep the FO from killing himself (and those on board). Because of the fight for control there were very likely high G forces involved as well as high speed. The FDR stopped recording, so there is no way to know for certain. A separated engine was in one debris field with the remainder of the aircraft and passengers in another a short distance away. Therefore, there was an engine separation, not an in-flight airframe breakup as he wants everyone to believe...

The point is that this is not evidence of an in-flight breakup due to speed at all. It was merely an engine separation likely due to both speed and high G due to the cockpit fight for control... One more to add to the list of deceptions perpetuated by this same dictator of his fraudulent kingdom...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by WetBlanky
 


Roosevelt Roberts doesn't really make sense saying " I was in the south parking , and I was at the east loading dock." does he ? To make sense shouldn't he have said something like " I was at the east loading dock and could see a bit of south parking in the distance" ?


Well not when the interviewer asks...

"Which parking lot, which dock were you at?"



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by WetBlanky
 


Roosevelt Roberts doesn't really make sense saying " I was in the south parking , and I was at the east loading dock." does he ? To make sense shouldn't he have said something like " I was at the east loading dock and could see a bit of south parking in the distance" ?


Well not when the interviewer asks...

"Which parking lot, which dock were you at?"


Why, less than 3 weeks after the attack, did he refer to SOUTH loading ?



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by WetBlanky
 


Roosevelt Roberts doesn't really make sense saying " I was in the south parking , and I was at the east loading dock." does he ? To make sense shouldn't he have said something like " I was at the east loading dock and could see a bit of south parking in the distance" ?


Well not when the interviewer asks...

"Which parking lot, which dock were you at?"


Interviewer??????


If you want to persist with nonsense, I'll start a new thread listing and explaining all the crap you've pulled just like I said earlier. That will keep you busy for a day or two and I don't think it's the type of publicity that you want. That ought to let everyone know just what kind of "interviewers" CIT morons are....

Go find a new hobby, this one is a FAILURE



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


An amateur pilot wouldn't know how to keep a damaged plane airborne. It would have taken all the skill a professional pilot had to bring home those damaged planes.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


An amateur pilot wouldn't know how to keep a damaged plane airborne. It would have taken all the skill a professional pilot had to bring home those damaged planes.


The plane was damaged/fluttering not long before it struck the Pentagon so keeping it airborne may not have been the problem you perceive. I defer to the professional pilots on whether the fly-by-wire systems on the aircraft and its structural integrity would have kept it from immediately falling out of the sky.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


An amateur pilot wouldn't know how to keep a damaged plane airborne. It would have taken all the skill a professional pilot had to bring home those damaged planes.


The plane was damaged/fluttering not long before it struck the Pentagon so keeping it airborne may not have been the problem you perceive. I defer to the professional pilots on whether the fly-by-wire systems on the aircraft and its structural integrity would have kept it from immediately falling out of the sky.


B-757's are not fly-by-wire. The fluttering was within the final 5 seconds, so it was not an issue for the pilot to even attempt to control. It was not a problem because it crashed!





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 56  57  58    60  61 >>

log in

join