What hit the pentagon on 9/11/01?

bunkerbuster
predator
a cessna engien straped to a war head.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

lol you're never going to give me a strait answer are you ?

i really just want to know how many times out of one hundred you think you could hit the pentagon in.

100 out of 100 times.

As I've already mentioned, I would be bored to death after the first time.

OK, sounds reasonable. Now how many times would you be able to hit the pentagon if you were only allowed to hit it's lateral walls and could not touch or graze it's horizontal roof?

[edit on 9/24/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

That's the problem. YOU don't understand that a simulator takes all of that into account.

Oh really? Does the simulator simulate real world g forces acting upon
the pilot?

I mean, IF the simulator didn't accurately re-create the reality of flight, then what good would it be???

Can the simulator reproduce aero effects of the air pressure...let's say
if your aircraft went 150 knots over VMo at sea level?

A modern simulator that is considered "landing certified" meets the requirement, per the FAA.

Your simulators and instructors do not teach how to control a massive
jet at 460+ knots while experiencing several g's.


I'd like to see you hit either of those targets while the airframe is stressed
beyond VMo/MMo.

Weed, I learned something new while watching the latest Pilot's presentation.

Can you explain what the Equivalent Airspeed might have been for either
of the planes?

EDIT: Change 'effective' to 'equivalent'

[edit on 24-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just in the first few seconds....that is NOT an A320 (as in the USAir ditching in the Hudson -- looks like a 'generic' simulator).

No, this is a FAA certified Level D G150 simulator. The warnings weren't present because we silenced them when they started squawking at us because we planned on setting it down in the river.

I was just nodding to your comment on how easy modern planes are to fly in normal conditions. I don't have any flight school experience (Other than numerous hours in a flight sim) and I can take off (so easy) and land this thing with very little problem. Flying towards a large object is as easy as looking out the window. Navigation is the only difficult part. I have to use the FMS to help me find the airport, but once that's in sight there's nothing to it.

I know this isn't an A320 or a Boeing 757, but I would say the concept is the same for most planes. I've flown several of the Gulfstream sims, a Falcon sim, a KC-135, C-130, and B-1B sim (All level D) and there's never any issue with flying towards an object that's in sight. I call it IFR... "I follow roads".

In real life I've had the control of a Piper cub , a glider at the Air Force Academy, and a KC-135R (look at my other media). The KC-135 was much easier to handle than the smaller powered plane.

My point being of course that just about anybody with a little simulator practice could hit the broadside of the one of the largest buildings in the world 100 out of 100 times. The only time I've ever struggled with a visual target was trying to line up the B-1B under a KC-10 for refueling. That's magnitudes of levels more difficult than flying into a building, but only because you're trying not to run into the KC-10. Flying your plane into another object is so easy. Trying not to crash is what actually takes effort.

Originally posted by jthomas

It's a mistake in reasoning. Suppose a video surfaced definitely show an American Airlines approaching and hitting the Pentagon. What would that actually change?

Would it change the other evidence that already demonstrates conclusively that AA77 hit the Pentagon? Of course not.

Would it change your mind? Perhaps. But then you don't believe the massive evidence that already demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. Would you suddenly now accept all of that evidence only to come to the realization that the evidence was right in front of you all these years?

The fact is that any video that surfaced showing AA77 hitting the Pentagon does not change the existing evidence in any way whatsoever.

The lack of a video demonstrates nothing.

JUST THE FACT the footage released is CLAIMED by the PERPS aka MEDIA AND GOVERNMENT, to be VISUAL PROOF of AA77 WHEN IN FACT IT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING they claim is CONCLUSIVE, is alone MORE than enough to SUSPECT and question the OCS.


FACT: contrary to your CLAIM, there is NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AA77 hit the pentagon.

Just the FACT that you nor the Perps can explain why the physical DAMAGE there isn't consistent with what should have occurred and been seen, is enough of an argument against the theory that a real plane or AA77 hit the pentagon.

Please show me just one link or logical explanation you've given why the front LAWN looks like an almost perfect model of a GOLF COURSE Tiger Woods could have played on during and after this alleged impact?

Are you actually telling everyone that you believe the damage and LACK OF on the pentagon lawn is CONSISTENT with the STORY of the FLIGHT PATH?

Do you agree with witnesses who claim the WINGS FOLDED BACK AND DISINTEGRATED? Are these the types of brilliant un-tainted objective WITNESSES you're talking about?

Anyone want to bet we'll never see a real answer to these questions from JTHOMAS? Just evasions and circular arguments circumventing basic common sense questions that have never been answered or logically explained.

Go ahead JT...we're all waiting for you to once again demonstrate how you're either trolling to derail serious intelligent discourse, in total denial or a shill defending the Perps who murdered thousands on 9/11.


[edit on 24-9-2009 by Orion7911]

My question about this entire pentagon thing is:

Why is it still in the Governments interest to allow this conspiracy theory to continue for this amount of time?

There are stills & footage of what happened to the Pentagon on that sad day, why not just give the unedited footage, -that was confiscated-, back to the CCTV owners.

Job done!

Originally posted by turbofan


Oh really? Does the simulator simulate real world g forces acting upon
the pilot?

Really, turbofan....you bring up the g forces as a red herring. Are you actually a pilot?

Maybe you aren't...but, in any event, no of course a simulator attached to the floor can't create a sustaind g force...it uses motion to fool the inner ear, though.

SO...in a steady, level 60 degree turn, no you can't simulate the 2 gs you would feel in reality. BUT, for the purposes of airline training, it is suitably realistic.

And, I know you're trying to bring up that bogus junk about a 10-g pull out....there is NOTHING to support that particular crackpot 'theory'.

Can the simulator reproduce aero effects of the air pressure...let's say
if your aircraft went 150 knots over VMo at sea level?

Huh?? "the aero effects of the air pressure..." You really aren't a pilot, are you?

Oh....but you know some of the terms. OK....yes, the simulator, since it is using mathematics, will faithfully recreate the physics, even in an overspeed situation...up to a point. BUT, how is this relevant? BTW, 462 KT is about 122 KT over VMO.

Your simulators and instructors do not teach how to control a massive
jet at 460+ knots while experiencing several g's.

Ibid. AND....speed is irrelevant. Controls still work the same way, I.E. ailerons and elevators.

I'd like to see you hit either of those targets while the airframe is stressed
beyond VMo/MMo.

Oh...the use of terms again. Someone told you, but you really don't understand them. (BTW, MMO doesn't apply AT ALL near sea level....way off there, mate).

The airplane exceeded VMO for only a very brief period...airspeed reached 340 KT at 13:37:21. Flight Recorder data stopped at 13:37:44.

There was less than a second left before impact. By this point, the airplane's momentum would be sufficient to carry it forward!!!

Can you explain what the Effective Airspeed might have been for either
of the planes?

???? "Effective Airspeed"? What cotext are you using that new term?

I know of Indicated, Calibrated and True airspeed.

My search for "Effective Airspeed" led to a term "Effective True Airspeed"...which relates to the wind triangle problem to determine groundspeed.

It is not a common term used in the US. Sounds British.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

edit to add:how many times did you fly the sim with a plane full of hostages while praying to your god after just having murdered someone to take control? Just curious how many variables we can just toss out when they get in the way.

Well....THAT and a bag of manure can help in your garden.

Huh????



I am completely flummoxed by that, there is no other appropriate response, except....Huh????

Not only that weedy,

When you Ricky Martin and the rest of your simulator salsa crew swim up from the bottom of the Hudson River.
Take some "on topic time" to further explain how what ever hit the PENTAGON left none of it's parts between the OS bs light poles and the building?
Also attempt to give a short winded reply concerning the Un- burned and still clothed bodies of the Pentagon workers.
Please no flummoxed explaination.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Take some "on topic time" to further explain how what ever hit the PENTAGON left none of it's parts between the OS bs light poles and the building?

I don't know. Exactly. What. Part. Of. The. Airplane. Hit. The. Poles.

IF, as is most likely, it was just the leading edges of the wings, then there is no reason to think the "pieces" (in this case, the slats attached to the leading edges) would just "drop off" and suddenly fall straight down upon impacting the poles. Forward momentum...people seem to forget about that.

A lot of hay is made about these bloody poles...gee, does anyo0ne think it was REALLY necessary to "stage" faked downed light poles? I mean, IF the whole thing was faked....everything, the Flight Recorder data, airplane debris on scene, etc...then WHY include and risk being "caught" by the "staged" light poles??? Does not make sense.

The scenario could have been explained away by just saying the iarplane was in a steeper dive than it truly was...missing the poles entirely.

This also applies to the entire NOC (North of Citgo) argument....WHY???

I mean, on the one hand, the CTers want to have people believe that this incredibly complex top secret event was perpetrated....yet they (the "Gov't") are that incompetent to leave these "clues" so that a couple of twenty-somethings in their basement will find them???

Also attempt to give a short winded reply concerning the Un- burned and still clothed bodies of the Pentagon workers.

I don't know. Never saw ALL of the photos of the victims. Are their photos of unburned victims? What was the cause of death, then?

Some are trying to push the notion of a missile...fine. We all saw the fireball, so the most likely cause of fatalities was heat and fire...were there concussive injuries too? A large airplane plowing in at 775 fps is going to also have a concussive force, as it impacts...so dead bodies lacking burn evidence still is not conclusive proof of "No Plane".

(OH...I don't do 'short-winded' very well...)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Maybe you aren't...but, in any event, no of course a simulator attached to the floor can't create a sustaind g force...it uses motion to fool the inner ear, though.

You should study the available FDR data a little more closely, and/or
perhaps the events based on available information.

The fact is, the simulator cannot reproduce real world g forces, nor
can it predict and apply aerodynamic effects of air pressure on the
control surfaces/airframe.

And, I know you're trying to bring up that bogus junk about a 10-g pull out....there is NOTHING to support that particular crackpot 'theory'.

Oh really? What value did you come up with? Based on what data points?

Huh?? "the aero effects of the air pressure..." You really aren't a pilot, are you?

I see nothing wrong with that statement. Are you trying to tell me that
air pressure is not a factor?

even in an overspeed situation...up to a point. BUT, how is this relevant?

What point would that be? 20 knots? 50 knots? 100 knots?

BTW, 462 KT is about 122 KT over VMO.

For the Pentagon event yes. How about the other planes (IE: Towers)
according to the NTSB?

Still you see nothing wrong with this 122 knots over VMo?

Ibid. AND....speed is irrelevant. Controls still work the same way, I.E. ailerons and elevators.

Is that so? You think the yoke movements would be the same at
400 Knots as they would as 200 Knots (same altitude)? There are
many pilots who disagree with you and explain why in the video.

Hmmm... I can tell you for fact this even applies with cars, and boats!

Are you sure you want to stick by your words? Have you ever taken
an aircraft over the max operating speed? Do you have any idea what
happens with the aircraft begins to lose control?

Oh...the use of terms again. Someone told you, but you really don't understand them. (BTW, MMO doesn't apply AT ALL near sea level....way off there, mate).

I never said MMo was used at sea level. I said the aircraft exceeded
max operating speed of VMo by 150 knots.

The airplane exceeded VMO for only a very brief period...airspeed reached 340 KT at 13:37:21. Flight Recorder data stopped at 13:37:44.

So for 23 seconds, you think Hani could control a 757 and remain level
with the ground? Remember now...he's going well over VMo...the
speed is questionable to begin with. In addition, he's experiencing well
over 2G, and the aerodynamics of flight will change according to many
pilots interviewed.

???? "Effective Airspeed"? What cotext are you using that new term?

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to type Equivalent Airspeed [EAS]

Can you tell me what that might be for any of the aircraft please?



[edit on 24-9-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

Just to clarify a few points:

... the simulator cannot ... predict and apply aerodynamic effects of air pressure on the control surfaces/airframe.

Incorrect. The control column and rudder pedals in the simulator are hydraulically operated, and provides an artificial "feel" to be as accurate as possible to the real thing.

We can simulate everything in the non-normal and emergency checklists and procedures....

A jammed stablizer, for instance. I quarantee you it's a handful. When the simulation starts, and the horizontal stab is "frozen" and unable to be trimmed, it takes a LOT of strength to fly the darned thing. The amount of elevator force varies according to airpeed, just like in the real thing. THAT'S why, in the procedure, if the stab becomes jammed with flaps up, we land at a reduced flap setting, because of the pitch control forces required at higheer flap settings...AND to provide adequate elevator control in the flare. Bet you didn't know that?

ALSO, V1 cuts. Takes a LOT of leg pressure on the rudder pedal....AND, as airpeed increases, rudder effectivity increases, so the amount of required deflection decreases. Typical V1 cut, climb and clean up....THEN when at "top bug"....about 210 knots, depends on airplane and weight...a few units of rudder trim. Personally, I like to keep a bit of pressure on the "good" pedal, because with every power setting change, or speed change, the rudder force changes.

OH....the computers know how to simulate "air pressure forces" real good....

You think the yoke movements would be the same at
400 Knots as they would as 200 Knots (same altitude)?

"yoke movements"?? Uh huh...

At higher airspeeds, for a given rate of pitch or roll change, less control surface deflection is required. The airplane is MORE responsive at higher speeds, all else being equal. ALSO, do you know what "elevator feel" is???

Remember...ALL the controls are hydraulic. Power steering, if you prefer layman's terms....

Have you ever taken an aircraft over the max operating speed?

No. We discuss it, though. AND understand warning signs.

Do you have any idea what happens with the aircraft begins to lose control?

Yes. Do you?

Look up the term "Mach tuck". And "roll reversal." (Induced because the wingtips flex opposite because of aileron deflection at high speeds...but, of course, that occurs very close to Mach...and not on all airplanes)

BUT....those are going to manifest at VERY CLOSE to the speed of sound. At sea level, standard day, that is 768 MPH...about 667 knots. SO, you see, none of the airplanes on 9/11 came close to Mach 1.

BTW....look up a TWA 841 incident, back in 1979....guy by the name Harvey "Hoot" Gibson.

Wait, maybe I can link it....

....while the plane was cruising at 39,000 feet, its #7 slat extended, initiating a sharp roll to the right. The roll continued despite the corrective measures taken by the autopilot and the human pilot. The aircraft went into a spiral dive, losing about 34,000 feet in 63 seconds.
*skip*

During the course of the dive, the plane rolled through 360 degrees twice, and crossed the Mach limit for the 727 airframe. It was later estimated from the flight data recorder that the plane was momentarily supersonic.

en.wikipedia.org...(1979)


I remember this incident. They stuck together, stuck to their story:

The NTSB investigated the incident and established after eliminating all individual and combined sources of mechanical failure, that the extension of the slats was due to the flight crew manipulating the flap/slat controls in an inappropriate manner.

The crew, Capt. Harvey "Hoot" Gibson, first officer Jess Kennedy, and flight engineer Garry Banks, denied that their actions had been the cause.

It is widely thought that Capt. "Hoot" was demonstrating a trick he used to get higher altitudes than normally achievable at a given weight. The B727 had a flap '1' setting. BUT, the slats also were commanded to extend at that setting...so his trick (it's alleged) was to pull the C/Bs for the slats and leading edge flaps, and therefore only allow the trailing edge flaps to extend, thus changing the camber of the wing and achieving the higher altitude (of course, it also adds drag, so trying to save fuel was likely moot..)

Anyway, the Second Officer was not in on this...he was outside when Hoot and the First Officer pulled this stunt. SO, the S/O comes in, sits down...and sees the circuit breakers out...so he resets them.

Poof! One exciting ride had by all!!!

So for 23 seconds, you think Hani could control a 757 and remain level with the ground?

Who said he was level? You?

In addition, he's experiencing well
over 2G....

"well over"?? Um...2 gs isn't that much. BUT, who says the airplane was experiencing 2 gs? You? Again....it was descending, and accelerating. Wings nearly level. Where are the g-forces coming from?

Sorry, my mistake. I meant to type Equivalent Airspeed [EAS]

...yes, and EAS is not relevant.

At sea level EAS is the same as true airspeed (TAS) and calibrated airspeed (CAS). At high altitude, EAS may be obtained from CAS by correcting for compressibility error.

en.wikipedia.org...

Some of your pilot buddies might have a little hypoxia.

But, everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how ill-informed.
_____________________________________________________________

Adding...regarding Mach tuck:

From the Boeing 757/767 FCTM:
"The airplane exhibits excellent stability throughout the high altitude/ high Mach range. Mach buffet is not normally encountered at high Mach cruise. The airplane does not have a Mach tuck tendency.

With Mach trim inoperative, the airplane exhibits a neutral trim change when accelerating to speeds approaching MMO. When the Mach trim system is operative, the airplane exhibits a nose up trim change that increases steadily as the airplane accelerates to speeds approaching MMO.

The stabilizer motion associated with this nose up trim change is imperceptible without careful scrutiny of the aisle stand indicator."

Again, even at 100+ knots over VMO, at sea level, the airplane is no where near MMO. The airspeed indicator mach meter window doesn't even open up until above about 20,000 feet.


[edit on 24 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Here is what a 747 pilot thinks;
The Hunt For Flight 77, As Viewed By A 747 Pilot

from… A posting today on the APFN noticeboard…
disc.server.com...

3/6/02

From: Deleted for Privacy

I flew the Boeing 747 JUMBO Jet., but not this 757. I retired before this came into service. But, from what I see (or don't see) looking at these pictures; its hard to pick out aircraft parts.

The wingtips alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street, the engines (2) would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole.

The belly of the aircraft contains, fuel tanks, baggage, mail bags, and cargo; none of this type debris can be seen. Assuming 8600 gallons of kerosene fuel @ specific gravity of approx 6.9 lbs/gal (temperature considered) weight of the fuel would be close to 60,000 lbs and would splatter everywhere.

Where are the seats, those with passengers buckled in would be ripped our of the floor, for that matter, where are the passengers? I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings.

If these pictures were taken within 3 days after 9/11, there would have been definite remains of parts. I don't see any. However, digital computer photos can be doctored up to suit any lawyers cause.

But from the photos shown, there ain't no fly in this pudding.

reply to post by u4itornot


With all respect for the former B747 pilot:

The wingtips alone would have sheared off and bounced back into the street...

Well, right there shows rubbish thinking.

I hate to keep beating the dead horse, but even the wingtips had MOMENTUM. They don't just shear off, and "bounce" 180 degrees from their former direction of travel.

...the engines (2) would have penetrated deeper into the wall and framing structure further than any other part making a definite hole.

He is assuming (falsely) that the engines would have remained intact, during the crash sequence. They shredded, as they were destroyed...they were operating close to full power, and the internal components rotating very fast. But, of course, since this 747 pilot wrote his opinion, we've seen photos of the debris -- including engine parts verifiable as belonging to the RB-211 engine.

Well then this guy has alot of technical info to support the fact that no witnesses saw the plane do the fighter plane like spiral that he says would have torn it apart.



Actually the average speed during the spiral is about 380 MPH.

I'll do a proper calculation on that later.

At the 2 narrowest points of the plot it is about 4 miles.... By Google maps scale.

I'll do a proper calculation on that also later.

Within this "width" of the spiral Hanni did a 180 degree turn...... And according to reheats bank calculator the "Islamic radicals" once again defied the laws of physics.

Edit to add - The 2 points at # 7 and # 15 in the above chart is the end points of the 180 degree turn.
That gives a time difference of 1 minute 35.330 seconds.
The distance between those points is 25991.553 feet according to the 84 RADES 3d Radar range calculator. which works out to 4.9 miles.
The average speed for those points is 321 MPH.

In this graphic, the green hilites are the best match with known data and the yellow is the problem area.

reply to post by u4itornot

...the plane do the fighter plane like spiral that he says would have torn it apart.

???? There was no "fighter-like" spiral. It was a descending turn, at about 30-35 degrees of bank.

Actually the average speed during the spiral is about 380 MPH.

Which is it? Below, not quoted here, you said from RADES data it was 321 MPH.

Can we stick to knots, though? Because that's what the airpeed indicator is displaying, and what is recorded on the SSFDR.

380 MPH = 330 Kts.

321 MPH = 279 Kts.

The flight recorder data shows a speed of between 280-300 KIAS in the turn. Perfectly reasonable speeds, nothing unusual.

reply to post by u4itornot

The distance between those points is 25991.553 feet according to the 84 RADES 3d Radar range calculator. which works out to 4.9 miles.

I plugged in 300 Kts, and a 35-degree bank.

Here's what we get, with those parameters:

Calculated Results

Turn Diameter 22869.8 Feet
Turn Diameter 3.8 NMiles

G Load 1.2 Gs

360° Turn Time 2.4 Minutes

Those are just highlights....

www.csgnetwork.com...

I see no problem here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

... the simulator cannot ... predict and apply aerodynamic effects of air pressure on the control surfaces/airframe.

Incorrect. The control column and rudder pedals in the simulator are hydraulically operated, and provides an artificial "feel" to be as accurate as possible to the real thing.

What does a hydraulic assist have to do with predicting the effects of
air pressure on the airframe?

Do you understand what I mean about over-stressing the airframe,
and encountering air pressure beyond that which the wings were
designed to fly?

You may want to reference the Pilot's Encyclopedia of Aero Knowledge,
figure 3-40 in the section, "High Speed Flight".

The effects described here discuss the points I'm highlighting in my
question.

We can simulate everything in the non-normal and emergency checklists and procedures....

But you stated up to a point! So what is that point? We already know
the simulator cannot reproduce the g forces. Strike one.

We already know that since you are not trained to fly 150 knots over
VMo (as reported by the NTSB for Flight 175 @ 510 Knots), you are not
familiar with the behaviour of the aircraft in, "uncontrolled flight". Strike two.

Can you guess what strike three might be?

A jammed stablizer, for instance. ... The amount of elevator force varies according to airpeed, just like in the real thing. ...AND to provide adequate elevator control in the flare. Bet you didn't know that?




OH....the computers know how to simulate "air pressure forces" real good....

Actually, I learned a few things from watching the presentation and this
is covered quite well.

You keep contradicting yourself however. You claim the simulator is
great for representing real-word conditions...but you also say, "to a point".
So which is it?

Also considering the two strikes I've pointed out above.

At higher airspeeds, for a given rate of pitch or roll change, less control surface deflection is required. The airplane is MORE responsive at higher speeds

Another contradiction here. Above you imply that because the controls
are hydraulic, everything should be equal.

Here you say the aircraft is more responsive and requires less deflection
at higher speed.

So how would any of these terrorists understand how to control a 510 knot
767 if their Sensa training and/or simulator couldn't give them this experience?

That doesn't say much for highly trained pilots who have trouble hitting
runways at landing speeds.

Two of the pilots interviewed in the latest video have time in 757/767's
and one of them actually flew the very same plane that hit the Twin Tower!

Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international captain
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

No. We discuss it, though. AND understand warning signs.

So reading and talking are the same as, 'real world' conditions?

I think Rusty, and Ross among others have issue with your comments.

Look up the term "Mach tuck". And "roll reversal."
BUT....those are going to manifest at VERY CLOSE to the speed of sound. At sea level, standard day, that is 768 MPH...about 667 knots. SO, you see, none of the airplanes on 9/11 came close to Mach 1.

Is that so? None came close to Mach 1? Are you sure about that?
My source says otherwise. Check your math against the NSTB reported
data for UA 175.

BTW according to these pilots, you don't necessarily need to be 'close'
to Mach 1 in order to observe the out of control aspects of flight.

A second reply is forth coming to address the rest of your post; not enough room here.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The crew, Capt. Harvey "Hoot" Gibson, first officer Jess Kennedy, and flight engineer Garry Banks, denied that their actions had been the cause.

Let' compare similar aircraft instead of a 727 (< which is smaller and more agile)?

www.boeing.com...
www.boeing.com...

How about Egypt Air 990?! A 767! Look it up.

So for 23 seconds, you think Hani could control a 757 and remain level with the ground?

Who said he was level? You?

Who said this level? Come on, please tell me you 've studied the
Pentacon event? What height were the poles *cough* clipped?

How far away was the first pole from the *cough*, " impact" point?

What was the last recorded DME, Speed and Altitude (

Have you ever looked at the passenger list on this plane, it is an odd coincidence that you had so many high level people on one plane with a low passenger load. Check out this link as it details those on the plane and their importance in the military and defense field.

portland.indymedia.org...


[edit on 24-9-2009 by u4itornot]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
no of course a simulator attached to the floor can't create a sustaind g force...it uses motion to fool the inner ear, though.

Motion does not "fool" the inner ear in a sim it actually affects the inner ear. The inner ear is affected by pressure as well as movement, that is why it helps us keep balance. So far we have "as realistically as possible, accurate as possible, something else as possible and then of course it cannot simulate.....

So a few pages ago, I was an idiot for claiming a simulator is still no test because it is not a true analog for this event. In that time, you have admitted it does things well, but not perfectly as well and does not involve the stresses on the mind and body that would actually have been involved.

Now that we settled the fact that you were wrong to try and correct me if you were going to go on to back me up, can we get back to the topic. Perhaps a thread on your simulator experiences is warranted but I highly doubt that it was a simulator flying through the air into the building so it is a little played out. Thanks for correcting yourself though, however slowly.