quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

With experience of autopilot both from a flying point of view and maintenance point of view, they aren't all that reliable and the pilots I have known would not trust it at low altitude due to the lack of room to manoeuvre if the tits up scenario came into play.

How much maneuvering do you think they planned on doing? For that matter do you think they were worried about being in a tits up scenario (they were on their way to cause that precisely).

Which aircraft do you have experience with and which autopilot system have you worked on? Oh and how long ago?

With regards to the reported aircraft that punched such a deep hole in the Pentagon, it is obvious the target was the Pentagon, to fly low and level for a time to strike the building as it seemed at ground level, anything other than a direct hit would have been a tits up scenario as regards to the terrorist intentions, unless they had really planned to bellypan the plane into the grass outside the Pentagon.

And another thing, I saw a video on the youtube where an F4 Phantom was piled ito reinforced concrete to see what would happen in if the scenario came into being that someone wished to pile an aircraft into a nucler powerstation. The video demonstrated the Aluminium aircraft atomised on contact with the reinforced concrete block made to simulate the outer skin of a nuclear reactor building. What was the Pentagon made out of, plaster or reinforced concrete ?

Aircraft, Vickers VC10

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
A plane has a shitload of mass, and since kinetic energy goes by velocity squared, it had a shitload of kinetic energy (K.E. = 0.5*mass*velocity_squared).  It also has a lot of momentum (M = mass*velocity).  You'll get through a lot of stuff with high enough KE.

Stop talking like that, missy...you are making me hard.

"shitload", it's those technical terms that arouse me!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
A plane has a shitload of mass, and since kinetic energy goes by velocity squared, it had a shitload of kinetic energy (K.E. = 0.5*mass*velocity_squared).  It also has a lot of momentum (M = mass*velocity).  You'll get through a lot of stuff with high enough KE.

Stop talking like that, missy...you are making me hard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
I'll say it again. Why in the world would I want to do any of that?

one word; truth

quote:

Since there is no video or exact figures for altitude or speed we are speculating on the difficulty of the flight, much less on whether the flight was level and steady.

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

quote:

Since there is no video or exact figures for altitude or speed we are speculating on the difficulty of the flight, much less on whether the flight was level and steady.

There is plenty of video from the parking lot cameras, and detailed radar tracking from DCA, which is next door. There are few flights as well documented as that one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
I'll say it again. Why in the world would I want to do any of that?

one word; truth

What does "truth" have to do with any of this? Even if I interrogated and grilled my friend, made him produce a sworn affadavit, had him sign  something making him liable, revealed his name and details on the internet - all to convince a batch of nameless strangers on a BDSM board - odds are it still wouldn't be believed because it contradicts your "known facts". 

Logic, sense, proof, science - none of these matters because somehow an evil conspiracy of government masterminds built massive skyscrapers with bombs in them and then shot them with missiles while killing or kidnapping the passangers of four commercial planes all to fake a terrorist incident and nothing anyone produces will ever prove otherwise.

Believe whatever you want to believe. Faith allows no evidence. I believe planes struck the World Trade Center because I know someone who saw one hit and his word is sufficient for me. You don't know him or me so I don't expect you to take his word for it - however, fantasies of hidden thermite bombs and missile attacks are just that - fantasies. 

I have yet to see a single shred of credible evidence giving positive proof that there were bombs planted in the WTC or that a missile hit the building. Not evidence that it couldn't have happened the way the government said it did - that's negative proof rebutting the "planes and terrorists" story - positive proof like "we found an undetonated thermite bomb" or "here's video of six guys with a missile launcher pointed at the WTC".

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack
I have yet to see a single shred of credible evidence giving positive proof that there were bombs planted in the WTC or that a missile hit the building.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Their whole "there were no planes" line is so preposterous that it cant be anything more than trolling. Me and 75 other people watched the second plane from across the river, about 1/2 mile away. It wasnt a mass hallucination. You dont need to know the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus 320 to know it was fucking airplane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Their whole "there were no planes" line is so preposterous that it cant be anything more than trolling. Me and 75 other people watched the second plane from across the river, about 1/2 mile away. It wasnt a mass hallucination. You dont need to know the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus 320 to know it was fucking airplane.

really?

How do you know it was a 757 instead of a 767?

what color was it

what were its markings?

exactly where were you and the 75 other people

describe the exact flight path

cant wait to watch you duck out of this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Their whole "there were no planes" line is so preposterous that it cant be anything more than trolling. Me and 75 other people watched the second plane from across the river, about 1/2 mile away. It wasnt a mass hallucination. You dont need to know the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus 320 to know it was fucking airplane.

really?

but you need to know what you claim to have seen or you are full of shit

Especially since a cruise missile looks like an airplane... DUH

How do you know it was a 757 instead of a 767?

what color was it

what were its markings?

exactly where were you and the 75 other people

describe the exact flight path

cant wait to watch you duck out of this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Their whole "there were no planes" line is so preposterous that it cant be anything more than trolling. Me and 75 other people watched the second plane from across the river, about 1/2 mile away. It wasnt a mass hallucination. You dont need to know the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus 320 to know it was fucking airplane.

really?

but you need to know what you claim to have seen or you are full of shit

Especially since a cruise missile looks like an airplane... DUH

How do you know it was a 757 instead of a 767?

what color was it

what were its markings?

exactly where were you and the 75 other people

describe the exact flight path

cant wait to watch you duck out of this one.

So if I see an old lady get run over by an SUV, but I can't remember whether the SUV's gas cap was on the driver's side or the passenger's side, it didn't happen? Are you really this stupid, or is this all just some elaborate hoax?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



I told you it will be fun watching you duck out and it was at least for me.   Hell that alleged plane should have flown damn near a few blocks from you then.  You should be able to describe if it had any paint chips.  How you gonna see an impact with all that shit in the way!  LMAO

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



I told you it will be fun watching you duck out and it was at least for me.   Hell that alleged plane should have flown damn near a few blocks from you then.  You should be able to describe if it had any paint chips.  How you gonna see an impact with all that shit in the way!  LMAO

Not caring about your meaningless nits isnt "ducking out". But enjoy away. We are getting quite a kick out of your making a total ass of yourself too.

quote:

Especially since a cruise missile looks like an airplane... DUH

How do you know it was a 757 instead of a 767?

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

quote:

Especially since a cruise missile looks like an airplane... DUH

How do you know it was a 757 instead of a 767?

It goes a little bit like this: in New York City as well as in Washington/Arlington, we see an aircraft land or take off every 45 seconds or so, all day, every day. The majority of those are shuttles, and the majority of those are smaller Airbuses or smaller Boeing aircraft. Many of us fly these aircraft, as well, some of us commute between Washington and New York in them. We know which ones are which because the Airbus lets us disembark front and back, and the Boeing does not, so we check what we board when we board. When you see these things day in day out, every day, 52 weeks a year, every year, right over your head, you learn to tell the difference.

I understand this may come as a surprise to you, but we can actually tell the difference between cruise missiles and airliners because they forgot to put windows in the cruise missiles. I know, this must be an unforgivable mistake in your eyes, but there it is, it is a definite design flaw. I've noticed that cruise missiles seem to have slightly different wings, too - and I have personally never seen a cruise missile with turbofan engines, but maybe you know of one, or make one up, you're going to need that for this conversation.

The other way we can tell, though, is that cruise missiles have a tendency to explode, whereas airplanes do not, they disintegrate and catch fire, which is a different process - it is a bit like the difference between a car that has been in a wreck, and a car bomb - they look a bit different, afterwards. I know from driving past the hole in the Pentagon, most days, and flying over the impact site in lower Manhattan, two or three times a week, that these sites looked very different from sites that were hit by missiles, which you get to see when you spend some time in the military. I know from the damage done to my office, across the street from the WTC, that the damage was impact damage, not explosion damage, as the two have very different patterns, and I would have noticed the fire damage that would have resulted from a cruise missile hitting a building four hundred yards from mine (I have plenty of pictures taken by my colleagues on the recovery teams). Apart from anything else, an explosion has a 180 degree dispersal pattern, whereas an impact has a mostly forward dispersal pattern. This was very visible at the Pentagon, where there was no damage of any kind to the road adjacent to the impact site, at a distance of maybe 300 yards, and I know this because I drove on that road, past the blast site, when going home from my other office, in D.C., to my home in Virginia. I know it is hard to believe, but I would have noticed bits of road missing, burn marks, and I would have noticed if they had closed the road for repairs, which would have been a likely procedure after a massive explosion. But no, the burn was forward, and sideways, from the first impact location right in front of the building, all clearly visible from the road for weeks. Had they closed the road, you see, I, and several thousand fellow commuters, would not have been able to drive there, or go to the Pentagon City Mall to shop, and we would have probably noticed that. Honest, we are that smart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
With experience of autopilot both from a flying point of view and maintenance point of view, they aren't all that reliable and the pilots I have known would not trust it at low altitude due to the lack of room to manoeuvre if the tits up scenario came into play.

How much maneuvering do you think they planned on doing? For that matter do you think they were worried about being in a tits up scenario (they were on their way to cause that precisely).
Which aircraft do you have experience with and which autopilot system have you worked on? Oh and how long ago?

With regards to the reported aircraft that punched such a deep hole in the Pentagon, it is obvious the target was the Pentagon, to fly low and level for a time to strike the building as it seemed at ground level, anything other than a direct hit would have been a tits up scenario as regards to the terrorist intentions, unless they had really planned to bellypan the plane into the grass outside the Pentagon.

And another thing, I saw a video on the youtube where an F4 Phantom was piled ito reinforced concrete to see what would happen in if the scenario came into being that someone wished to pile an aircraft into a nucler powerstation. The video demonstrated the Aluminium aircraft atomised on contact with the reinforced concrete block made to simulate the outer skin of a nuclear reactor building. What was the Pentagon made out of, plaster or reinforced concrete ?

Aircraft, Vickers VC10

Thanks for the reply. Thank you for verifying what happens to an aluminum aircraft when it hits a reinforced building.
A 757 carries a bit more mass than a Phantom, which means much more energy at the point of impact. I am not the one that claimed they were flying low and level, I just suggested that it was possible to do so. Since there is no video or exact figures for altitude or speed we are speculating on the difficulty of the flight, much less on whether the flight was level and steady.

Interesting bird, kind of out of the loop of modern auotpilots no? I would guess the RAF put in a decent computer when they were using them for a refueling platform, but I could be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


Which is it, why did we see pics of airplane debris alleged to have been from the airliner yet, why did those not vaporize and...all other evidence did ? This includes much unlike the F4, two titanium and steel engines of some 6 tons each.

quote:

ORIGINAL: antipode

quote:

Especially since a cruise missile looks like an airplane... DUH

How do you know it was a 757 instead of a 767?

It goes a little bit like this: in New York City as well as in Washington/Arlington, we see an aircraft land or take off every 45 seconds or so, all day, every day. The majority of those are shuttles, and the majority of those are smaller Airbuses or smaller Boeing aircraft. Many of us fly these aircraft, as well, some of us commute between Washington and New York in them. We know which ones are which because the Airbus lets us disembark front and back, and the Boeing does not, so we check what we board when we board. When you see these things day in day out, every day, 52 weeks a year, every year, right over your head, you learn to tell the difference.

I understand this may come as a surprise to you, but we can actually tell the difference between cruise missiles and airliners because they forgot to put windows in the cruise missiles. I know, this must be an unforgivable mistake in your eyes, but there it is, it is a definite design flaw. I've noticed that cruise missiles seem to have slightly different wings, too - and I have personally never seen a cruise missile with turbofan engines, but maybe you know of one, or make one up, you're going to need that for this conversation.

The other way we can tell, though, is that cruise missiles have a tendency to explode, whereas airplanes do not, they disintegrate and catch fire, which is a different process - it is a bit like the difference between a car that has been in a wreck, and a car bomb - they look a bit different, afterwards. I know from driving past the hole in the Pentagon, most days, and flying over the impact site in lower Manhattan, two or three times a week, that these sites looked very different from sites that were hit by missiles, which you get to see when you spend some time in the military. I know from the damage done to my office, across the street from the WTC, that the damage was impact damage, not explosion damage, as the two have very different patterns, and I would have noticed the fire damage that would have resulted from a cruise missile hitting a building four hundred yards from mine (I have plenty of pictures taken by my colleagues on the recovery teams). Apart from anything else, an explosion has a 180 degree dispersal pattern, whereas an impact has a mostly forward dispersal pattern. This was very visible at the Pentagon, where there was no damage of any kind to the road adjacent to the impact site, at a distance of maybe 300 yards, and I know this because I drove on that road, past the blast site, when going home from my other office, in D.C., to my home in Virginia. I know it is hard to believe, but I would have noticed bits of road missing, burn marks, and I would have noticed if they had closed the road for repairs, which would have been a likely procedure after a massive explosion. But no, the burn was forward, and sideways, from the first impact location right in front of the building, all clearly visible from the road for weeks. Had they closed the road, you see, I, and several thousand fellow commuters, would not have been able to drive there, or go to the Pentagon City Mall to shop, and we would have probably noticed that. Honest, we are that smart.