Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


Intriguing. Be interesting to hear what Ivar has to say about that as he insists that ground to air communications are impossible on these systems, let alone the possibility of control over the aircraft from outside of the aircraft.




posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

You think the turbulence should have overturned cars and ripped up the sod then you are obligated to produce some facts that support that theory.


They confirmed it in an episode of Mythbusters for crying out loud. And I believe I remember seeing Clarkson and chums in Top Gear making mincemeat of a BMW using that 747 they have parked up on the airfield where they film.The turbulence from a jet engine can indeed overturn a car. You'd be a moron to thing otherwise. Use some common sense.



edit on 12-9-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 



They confirmed it in an episode of Mythbusters for crying out loud. And I believe I remember seeing Clarkson and chums in Top Gear making mincemeat of a BMW using that 747 they have parked up on the airfield where they film.The turbulence from a jet engine can indeed overturn a car. You'd be a moron to thing otherwise. Use some common sense.


Think again. And use physics this time. The plane was moving, ergo the energy was being consumed moving the plane forward. When the plane is stationary than the force can be used to move other objects.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Bilk22
 



It's off topic I suppose, but explain why the wake turbulence from a craft flying in excess of 500mph didn't overturn cars on the freeway adjacent to the Pentagon. Why did it not damage the lawn in front of the building or cause other damage on the ground during the approach?

Please prove that it should have. The burden is yours, not mine. You think the turbulence should have overturned cars and ripped up the sod then you are obligated to produce some facts that support that theory.


Its commonly called "wing vortex" or "wake turbulence" Something a pilot is well aware of and will allways factor in on his take-offs and landings. You need to know exactly where the plane ahead of you is, relative to the strip so you are not caught in its wake. Getting caught in wake turbulence will flip your plane over quickly, I saw this happen once. Wake turbulence from small planes at low air speed can pose a danger. Imagine what a 757 can do to the landscape and the parked cars below when travelling at over 800 KPH, 30 TO 40 feet above the ground.

Watch the effect in this video of a plane flying much higher and at far lower speeds:





posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Then why is there a great big long list of accidents where other aircraft have suffered the ill effects of another aircrafts wake, if as you say all that energy is simply moving the plane forward, and has little effect on anything behind it?

Wind speeds of 100mph+ can overturn even large vehicles. You telling me that a 757/767 in flight produces less
? Pfft, c'mon.
edit on 12-9-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


Keep in mind, that high speed relative to the ground is also having the effect of severe strain on the wings as the plane is desperatly wanting to lift HIGHER, I dont know how the pilot could keep the plane level at that high speed aproaching the pentagon. I dont think hercules could have kept that plane from climbing, the yoke would probably have bent in his hands, or the planes wings would have torn off.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


The turbulence dissipates quickly, but it is there. On take-off and landings we allways watched to see exactly where the plane ahead of us was and compensated for wake turbulence. You learn to respect the effect, as it will flip your plane.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


It is essentially a horizontal tornado right? So it stands to reason that if the velocity of that 'tornado' exceeds at least 100mph then it is capable of producing the same damage as a 100mph tornado. Such as ripping up grass and overturning cars. Of course unless in hooper's world tornados don't cause damage.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



Imagine what a 757 can do to the landscape and the parked cars below when travelling at over 800 KPH, 30 TO 40 feet above the ground.

Imagine? I didn't ask for imagination - I asked for proof that the plane would have overturned cars and ripped up sod. Again, proof. It's basic science and physics. Should be easy to prove. All I'm seeing is anecdotes. What effects a plane will not neccessarily effect a car. Same way that a wind can overturn a sail boat but not a rowboat of the same size.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 



Then why is there a great big long list of accidents where other aircraft have suffered the ill effects of another aircrafts wake, if as you say all that energy is simply moving the plane forward, and has little effect on anything behind it?

How many "aircraft" were on the highway that morning? And it's not as I say, it's what basic science says. Sorry.

Wind speeds of 100mph+ can overturn even large vehicles. You telling me that a 757/767 in flight produces less
? Pfft, c'mon.

Really? Then prove it. For the record, repeating the same thing over and over again does not constitute proof. Neither does feigning exasperation.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bilk22
One of the many issues I have with untrained people piloting these jets, is navigation to the targets. They were thousands of feet above their targets and hundreds of miles away. There are no sign posts pointing them toward the target. I don't see these people as having the capability of using the cockpit instrumentation to do it. That leaves visual ground observation as the means to navigate back to the target. I just don't see it happening.

I also have difficulty believing that 19 people were able to circumvent detection in four different airports, on the same day, carrying box cutters. But that's off topic I suppose.


It's really not an issue at all. Just send a signal from the ground to the Digital Flight Director telling it to proceed "direct" to a certain latitude and longitude and to arrive at that point at a certain altitude at a certain speed. The inertial navigation system, GPS, and autothrottles can easily handle that. You probably would want to have a GPS update of the INS system at various intervals, particularly if the INS is anything other than a ring laser type.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Bilk22
 



It's off topic I suppose, but explain why the wake turbulence from a craft flying in excess of 500mph didn't overturn cars on the freeway adjacent to the Pentagon. Why did it not damage the lawn in front of the building or cause other damage on the ground during the approach?

Please prove that it should have. The burden is yours, not mine. You think the turbulence should have overturned cars and ripped up the sod then you are obligated to produce some facts that support that theory.


. Imagine what a 757 can do to the landscape and the parked cars below when travelling at over 800 KPH, 30 TO 40 feet above the ground.

Watch the effect in this video of a plane flying much higher and at far lower speeds:




Wake turbulence is a byproduct of lift generation and not primarily speed. The worst wake tubulence is from a very heavy aircraft flying very slowly. Because of the low speed, a high "alpha" or angle of attack is needed and usually wing devices are used, increasing wing camber and generating more lift.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by hooper
 


I dont need to prove it, it has already been proven. I think you just like living in ignorance, beats admitting that you're wrong. Well that and you're too lazy to look for yourself and want everyone else to do your reasoning for you. Poster child for the new world that y'ar.
edit on 12-9-2012 by quackers because: (no reason given)


For one that has no idea it could be dangerous to implant one.

You dont need to prove that your wrong because it has already been proven this is correct.

Read up a little on things in motion and how they accelerate and decelerate and the surrounding affects and then you will see the errors in your ways.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 



I dont need to prove it, it has already been proven.

So what's the big secret? If there's hard proof, please direct me and everyone else.

I think you just like living in ignorance, beats admitting that you're wrong.

Well, actually, I am the one demanding proof that can stand up to scientific examination, you the one relying on youtube videos, anecdotes and self defined "common sense".

Well that and you're too lazy to look for yourself and want everyone else to do your reasoning for you.

No, the claim has been put forward that no plane struck the Pentagon because if the plane had flown over the cars on the highway the cars would have overturned and the effect of the plane flight would have ripped the grass out of the ground. I am more than willing to look at proof for this claim, but none is forthcoming.

Poster child for the new world that y'ar.

If by "new world" you mean folks that just don't take your word for everything you say, well then I guess I am.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


Intriguing. Be interesting to hear what Ivar has to say about that as he insists that ground to air communications are impossible on these systems, let alone the possibility of control over the aircraft from outside of the aircraft.



You should read the comments before you post,




What this stated in that article is incorrect regarding the 757's and 767's. The 757 and 767, as used in the hijackings, aren't fly-by-wire aircraft, they're flight control systems are hydraulic, not computerised, all 757's and 767's have are onboard computerised warning systems to suggest actions to the pilot, a voice saying "PULL UP! PULL UP!" and alarms when diving are too low for example. I'd ask people to look into the Boeing 757 that crashed into a mountain ridge while trying to land at Cali, Colombia, in 1995, the 757's ground-warning system told the pilot to pull up, as he did, but the pilot did not retract the speed brakes as they climbed. The only Boeing that is fly-by-wire with build in computerised pilot assistance/override is the 777. On the 777 though the pilot has the ultimate say, pilots in general don't like being flown by computers, they can override the onboard computers and their built-in soft limits i.e. maximum g, pitch, roll etc on the 777. The only airliners that have flight control computers that the pilot can't override are Airbus A320's and newer Airbus models - the most controversial airliners going among pilots.


www.sianews.com...

Like i said the airplane manufacturer must demonstrate that that only the pilots can access SAFETY CRITICAL SYSTEMS , in this case the flight control system.

That be fly by wire or conventional systems.

It is an absolute certification requirement to be allowed to fly freight or passengers for money, period.

The source in RationalDespair's post is a hoax from 2002 and completly untrue.



edit on 12-9-2012 by Ivar_Karlsen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



Its commonly called "wing vortex" or "wake turbulence" Something a pilot is well aware of and will allways factor in on his take-offs and landings. You need to know exactly where the plane ahead of you is, relative to the strip so you are not caught in its wake. Getting caught in wake turbulence will flip your plane over quickly, I saw this happen once. Wake turbulence from small planes at low air speed can pose a danger. Imagine what a 757 can do to the landscape and the parked cars below when travelling at over 800 KPH, 30 TO 40 feet above the ground


AA587 November 12, 2001

American Airline Airbus caught in wake of a 747 - pilots overcorrected using too much rudder and snapped
off tail fin

en.wikipedia.org...

Not just small planes.......



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by crawdad1914
 


It is essentially a horizontal tornado right? So it stands to reason that if the velocity of that 'tornado' exceeds at least 100mph then it is capable of producing the same damage as a 100mph tornado. Such as ripping up grass and overturning cars. Of course unless in hooper's world tornados don't cause damage.



That is correct.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 



I guess these are photos entered into evidence by the same government that swore there were WMD's in Iraq? Why focus on these little easily fakeable items when there are so many huge glaring inconsistencies in the story


I suppose the people struck by aircraft debris are fake too....

What about young woman hit by piece of landing gear on Chuirch street and almost cut in half

Her injuries are fake...?


Late in the afternoon, he got a phone call from a doctor at NYU Downtown. "He said, 'We have someone here who may know you,' " St. John recalled.

Mardenfeld had taken the subway downtown to the trade center. As she got to the door of the station, some men with "WTC" on their shirts directed her and others to an exit from the mall.

When she walked out, she saw the second plane hit the south tower. "I heard,

'Run for cover,' " she said. She did, and that is the last thing she remembers about what she calls "the accident."

She was struck by large pieces of debris. Good Samaritans kept her from being trampled and eventually flagged down an ambulance





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join