Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 24-07-2012, 11:26 AM   #21
ex sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Subtleland
Posts: 24,263
Likes: 1,337 (631 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
If you must know, I don't often consider myself a "debunker", I just know a lot about what truthers believe and what rebuts their beliefs. My 'expertise', if I am to have one, would be anything to do with the aircrafts themselves. I am a pilot by trade, have a Bachelor of Aviation and a commercial licence, so arguments regarding aircraft, airspace, regulations, radar, ATC procedures etc I am very familiar with and can easily rebut the woo which truthers think is fact regarding these aspects.
So you are a pilot, what do you make of these other pilots conclusions.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed


(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. Update: Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text. For more information and to review the evidence gathered, click here.

__________________
Man everywhere seem to be caught in the denial of reality. They fear the awful truth and are turning a blind eye… .Therefore, they avoid it and cast it from their minds and consciousness.
ex sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 01:37 PM   #22
rosie789
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1,609
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Hi Dave. With the type of aircraft involved, and the speeds involved, yes I would expect pretty much what occurred. You cannot think of this as some light aluminum aircraft hitting a steal wall. When forces of this magnitude are involved, its construction is irrelevant. The only way you can think of it is Mass and Velocity. A small mass with a high velocity will have the same momentum as a large mass with a small velocity. In other words, if a marble was going fast enough, it would punch through a concrete wall. On 9/11, the aircrafts had both a very large velocity, and a very large mass.

The Boeing 767-200 is a very large, wide bodied aircraft, a take off weight of over 140,000 Kg. When a huge mass is traveling close to 260ms, such as flight 175 was after it had just finished diving towards the South Tower, I would expect to see exactly what I have seen.

To say however that the aircraft 'glided in' with no buckling, I would argue there is no way to say it didn't. There is no footage so highly detailed that we could see this buckling occurring as the aircraft tore into the building. You wouldn't be able to tell, because even when the aircraft was buckling, its massive forward momentum still pushed the entire aircraft into the building. Similar, in a way, to how Flight 93 was pushed by its forward momentum up to 20 feet into the ground.
I would agree. I would also factor into account the area of the building which the plane hit. Aeroplanes are aerodynamic, they need to be able to move through the air with minimal air resistance for their size. This would surely decrease the area of an impact allowing a plane to 'knife' into a building.

The plane would have a lot of momentum. It's far more complicated than some have suggested with 'steel vs aluminium' as we know vegetables can be punched though the steel frame of a car and that water is very destructive. If it were just a case of steel vs potato or concrete vs water....

It would be reasonable to expect the mass of the aeroplane to continue after the initial impact because the force of the perimeter columns would have to be fairly incredible to change the momentum to zero immediately. So there would also be destruction inside.

I would also add that skyscrapers are a steel frame and consist of many columns bolted together. They are not solid steel.

Last edited by rosie789; 25-07-2012 at 07:55 AM.
rosie789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 01:39 PM   #23
the tealady
Forum Advisor
 
the tealady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Down by the sea
Posts: 18,965
Likes: 4,648 (2,475 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lobuk View Post
Conspiracy Theorists Deserve An Apology

July 19, 2012

http://disquietreservations.blogspot...e-apology.html

Would you like the thread title changed to 'Truth Tellers Deserve an Apology'?
__________________
Unlike a lot of other people, David walks the talk. Be careful who you trust in this alternative media and research.

Please don't feed the trolls.

When I LIKE a post, it does not always mean I agree, it can also just mean I think a valid point has been made.
the tealady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 02:58 PM   #24
lobuk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Roger That
Posts: 21,944
Likes: 3,706 (2,108 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ozpixie View Post
Would you like the thread title changed to 'Truth Tellers Deserve an Apology'?
Yes please.

Definately ruffled a few feathers this thread but then thats a good thing as these hard truths need to be said and the truth hurts when it goes against a lifetime of indoctrination and programming.
lobuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 05:37 PM   #25
porridge
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: emigrating to Scotland..
Posts: 10,947
Likes: 1,651 (822 Posts)
Default

I have a question for the all seeing all knowing government parrots..wannabe pilots & physics professors.

How comes at all three crash sites, correct me if you think I am wrong, there was only one engine found?

Considering the alleged planes had two engines & at the wtc there were four engines, yet only one of these titanium engines found at each site..

Another bizarro 911 zone anomaly perhaps?

I dont prescribe to the no plane at the wtc, even tho the only real evidence I have ever seen apart from a few scraps of windows & some landing gear stuck in a outer column plus of course some magickal passports, is the engine, which kinda leads me to keep my distance from the no plane posse, even tho some of their tunes are banging & I have listened to all their tracks..none of them have explained the lone engine tho or even tried too.
porridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2012, 11:34 PM   #26
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I have never had much patience for Pilots for Truth. On the off chance that I have viewed or watched their material, I have found it frustratingly inaccurate, to the point where even someone with a private pilot knowledge of aviation could understand better.

Egypt Air 990 is one example of how Pilots for Truth cannot comprehend 9/11. One detail to start off with is Flight 175 was a 767-200. Egypt Air was a 767-300ER, a larger, much heavier (40,000kg higher MTOW) model than the 200 series.

To begin, it seems a very common misconception with those not familiar with aviation that if an aircraft exceeds its max speed (Vne or Vmo), it will immediately disintegrate. This is just not true. If it was, no one would want to travel by air, not even the pilots. Aircraft are built to withstand large forces over their design limits. Just have a look at the 777 stress test below:


Yup, that wing just with stood over 150% its intended load.

This Chinese operated 747 well exceeded Vmo, as well as subject to heavy g loadings. Parts of its empennage took heavy damage from the stress. Did it totally disintegrate and fall into the sea? No. It recovered from its heavy spin/dive and landed safely.




What Vmo means is that once you are over that limit, the aircraft begins taking stresses. The body will stress, the skin may crinkle, it may require a check, or expensive maintenance. However, if while the aircraft is over Vmo, it is subject to sudden, sharp control movements, it will cause structural damage and may cause failures.

So now we have Flight 990; an Egypt Air 767 which was intentionally flown into the water. On its initial dive, Flight 990 went between +g and –g as the pilot pushed the controls forward. This negative force is pushing the aircraft out of its limits. When the captain returns, there is a struggle with the controls. Both pilots are vying for control of the aircraft, fighting with it, pushing the aircraft in and out of its g limits, all the while it is well over Vmo. For this section of the flight, the aircraft suffers little significant structural failures. At the end of this dive, Flight 990 pulls sharply (still over Vmo) up and climbs very quickly, grossly exceeding the aircrafts g limits, before again turning back into a dive. The FDR and CVR do not record this last dive, only RADAR detects it. This is the dive where structural failures begin, the most significant of these failures is the left engine ripping off (I would assume the sharp pull out/high g’s from the first dive severely compromised the engine mounts, resulting in the exceeding Vmo in the second dive tearing it loose). This final dive is relatively short. The engine dislodges moments before impact with the Atlantic. You say there were two debris fields? I cannot see any relevance of this, being as the aircraft hit the water, the debris field would be spread out over a very large area.

Compare this with Flight 175. A lighter aircraft, meaning it may have a slightly higher g tolerance. (I say may because I have not had the time to check this, but it should). Flight 175 began a steep descent towards the South Tower. There were no sharp control inputs, moderate g limits being pushed on. Does this mean the aircraft will dismantle into a million pieces as Pilots for Truth suggest? No. It means the body is taking stresses which can be exceedingly costly to the airline to repair. Now I am not entirely saying that it is therefore impossible for an aircraft to suffer significant structural failure from exceeding Vmo, I am only saying it does not happen instantly the moment it does, and that it would either need to be grossly in excess, and/or combined with sharp control inputs and g loadings. By my understanding, after Flight 175 finished its steep descent, it could have easily sustained those speeds for the short period of time that it did with minimal structural failures.

An example, when I was training, I put a light aircraft into a power dive and very quickly exceeded Vne by around 30 knots. Even as a student pilot, I knew just to reduce the power to idle, and give small control inputs to correct the dive. The aircraft suffered no damage. Marwan Al Shehhi had a commercial pilot licence. He would have known how to keep the aircraft in one piece.

Hope this helped, I wrote it in a bit of a rush.

I mentioned above that my degree is in aviation. Part of that degree was studying up to 300 level of air crash investigation. Hope that gives this a bit more credibility.

Last edited by cjnewson88; 25-07-2012 at 04:40 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 06:07 AM   #27
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Edit: Not sure what speed this is going, but I dare say it's up there.


Last edited by cjnewson88; 25-07-2012 at 06:08 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 12:39 PM   #28
skanny
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: G.C.H.Q Cheltenham
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I have never had much patience for Pilots for Truth. On the off chance that I have viewed or watched their material, I have found it frustratingly inaccurate, to the point where even someone with a private pilot knowledge of aviation could understand better.

Egypt Air 990 is one example of how Pilots for Truth cannot comprehend 9/11. One detail to start off with is Flight 175 was a 767-200. Egypt Air was a 767-300ER, a larger, much heavier (40,000kg higher MTOW) model than the 200 series.

To begin, it seems a very common misconception with those not familiar with aviation that if an aircraft exceeds its max speed (Vne or Vmo), it will immediately disintegrate. This is just not true. If it was, no one would want to travel by air, not even the pilots. Aircraft are built to withstand large forces over their design limits. Just have a look at the 777 stress test below:

Boeing 777 Wing Test - YouTube

Yup, that wing just with stood over 150% its intended load.

This Chinese operated 747 well exceeded Vmo, as well as subject to heavy g loadings. Parts of its empennage took heavy damage from the stress. Did it totally disintegrate and fall into the sea? No. It recovered from its heavy spin/dive and landed safely.

Air Crash Investigation Panic Over The Pacific china air flight 006 - YouTube



What Vmo means is that once you are over that limit, the aircraft begins taking stresses. The body will stress, the skin may crinkle, it may require a check, or expensive maintenance. However, if while the aircraft is over Vmo, it is subject to sudden, sharp control movements, it will cause structural damage and may cause failures.

So now we have Flight 990; an Egypt Air 767 which was intentionally flown into the water. On its initial dive, Flight 990 went between +g and –g as the pilot pushed the controls forward. This negative force is pushing the aircraft out of its limits. When the captain returns, there is a struggle with the controls. Both pilots are vying for control of the aircraft, fighting with it, pushing the aircraft in and out of its g limits, all the while it is well over Vmo. For this section of the flight, the aircraft suffers little significant structural failures. At the end of this dive, Flight 990 pulls sharply (still over Vmo) up and climbs very quickly, grossly exceeding the aircrafts g limits, before again turning back into a dive. The FDR and CVR do not record this last dive, only RADAR detects it. This is the dive where structural failures begin, the most significant of these failures is the left engine ripping off (I would assume the sharp pull out/high g’s from the first dive severely compromised the engine mounts, resulting in the exceeding Vmo in the second dive tearing it loose). This final dive is relatively short. The engine dislodges moments before impact with the Atlantic. You say there were two debris fields? I cannot see any relevance of this, being as the aircraft hit the water, the debris field would be spread out over a very large area.

Compare this with Flight 175. A lighter aircraft, meaning it may have a slightly higher g tolerance. (I say may because I have not had the time to check this, but it should). Flight 175 began a steep descent towards the South Tower. There were no sharp control inputs, moderate g limits being pushed on. Does this mean the aircraft will dismantle into a million pieces as Pilots for Truth suggest? No. It means the body is taking stresses which can be exceedingly costly to the airline to repair. Now I am not entirely saying that it is therefore impossible for an aircraft to suffer significant structural failure from exceeding Vmo, I am only saying it does not happen instantly the moment it does, and that it would either need to be grossly in excess, and/or combined with sharp control inputs and g loadings. By my understanding, after Flight 175 finished its steep descent, it could have easily sustained those speeds for the short period of time that it did with minimal structural failures.

An example, when I was training, I put a light aircraft into a power dive and very quickly exceeded Vne by around 30 knots. Even as a student pilot, I knew just to reduce the power to idle, and give small control inputs to correct the dive. The aircraft suffered no damage. Marwan Al Shehhi had a commercial pilot licence. He would have known how to keep the aircraft in one piece.

Hope this helped, I wrote it in a bit of a rush.

I mentioned above that my degree is in aviation. Part of that degree was studying up to 300 level of air crash investigation. Hope that gives this a bit more credibility.

aren't the engines designed to break away when under stresses like you say on the engine mounts?

i have also been watching air crash investigators
skanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 01:30 PM   #29
ex sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Subtleland
Posts: 24,263
Likes: 1,337 (631 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I have never had much patience for Pilots for Truth. On the off chance that I have viewed or watched their material, I have found it frustratingly inaccurate, to the point where even someone with a private pilot knowledge of aviation could understand better.
Says it all really doesn't it.

Those speeds that were reported by the commission were impossible, pilots have explained it to you here, your answer was a typical response....don't have much time ......on the off chance that I have viewed their material....
Don't do much investigating do you, another one for the farce of the official explanation, rest my case.
__________________
Man everywhere seem to be caught in the denial of reality. They fear the awful truth and are turning a blind eye… .Therefore, they avoid it and cast it from their minds and consciousness.
ex sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 05:17 PM   #30
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skanny View Post
aren't the engines designed to break away when under stresses like you say on the engine mounts?
Nope, under no circumstance would you ever want an engine to disconnect from the aircraft body. Not only does this of course take away the thrust capability of the aircraft, but it changes the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft to the point where all the reference speeds are vastly different. There was a case of a DC-10 which lost an engine on take off. On it's climb out, the pilots flew it at the speed which it was supposed to for a single engine climb, however because the engine had actually detached from the body, that speed was no longer accurate, in fact it was higher. The aircraft stalled and crash. I believe it killed all on board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ex sheep View Post
Says it all really doesn't it.

Those speeds that were reported by the commission were impossible,
You're going to try and tell me an aircraft in a steep descent with power on cannot accelerate to 550mph for the seconds just before it hits a target??? This is why I cannot stand Pilots for Truth. This is basic stuff.

Last edited by cjnewson88; 25-07-2012 at 05:19 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 05:26 PM   #31
ex sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Subtleland
Posts: 24,263
Likes: 1,337 (631 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post


You're going to try and tell me an aircraft in a steep descent with power on cannot accelerate to 550mph for the seconds just before it hits a target??? This is why I cannot stand Pilots for Truth. This is basic stuff.
What steep descent, into the WTC

But I refuse to debate someone who has stated that they do not wish to view, and have not viewed the material presented.
__________________
Man everywhere seem to be caught in the denial of reality. They fear the awful truth and are turning a blind eye… .Therefore, they avoid it and cast it from their minds and consciousness.
ex sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 06:36 PM   #32
slave4life
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Edit: Not sure what speed this is going, but I dare say it's up there.

757 Extreme Low Pass - YouTube
HI,

I Have seen that video before its evidence that these airliners can reach high speed at low altitudes, as you have said already aircraft can exceed their design limits without breaking up. It is also more likely an aircraft will stay intact if it breaches its design limit for only a short time, which resembles what we see on 911.
slave4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 06:39 PM   #33
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ex sheep View Post
What steep descent, into the WTC :rolleyes
Omg, just don't go there...
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 06:45 PM   #34
ex sheep
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Subtleland
Posts: 24,263
Likes: 1,337 (631 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slave4life View Post
HI,

I Have seen that video before its evidence that these airliners can reach high speed at low altitudes, as you have said already aircraft can exceed their design limits without breaking up. It is also more likely an aircraft will stay intact if it breaches its design limit for only a short time, which resembles what we see on 911.
How do you know that aircraft was flying above its designed limits, doesn't look like it to me.
Those are highly trained pilots, not some box cutting specialists.

So we can throw out the tested designed limits of aircraft, especially rookie pilots flying into their deathbed, who would be nice and calm, given their impending fate.
__________________
Man everywhere seem to be caught in the denial of reality. They fear the awful truth and are turning a blind eye… .Therefore, they avoid it and cast it from their minds and consciousness.
ex sheep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 07:10 PM   #35
slave4life
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ex sheep View Post
How do you know that aircraft was flying above its designed limits, doesn't look like it to me.
Those are highly trained pilots, not some box cutting specialists.

So we can throw out the tested designed limits of aircraft, especially rookie pilots flying into their deathbed, who would be nice and calm, given their impending fate.
How do i know? I dont and never claimed i do. I was jus saying that its evidence large aircraft can fly at high speeds in low altitudes without breaking up. If i had to guess i would say that plane was going around 400 knots. Be interesting to know the actual speed.

Box cutting specialists? I didnt know they were.
slave4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 08:10 PM   #36
groen
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 75
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
snip
cjnewson88 you repeatedly use straw man arguments and other types of fallacy in your posts. I just hear a ding ding ding when i read your posts in terms of fallacies.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Take your pick from that website you have used it in this thread. haha.

If you want we can make another thread called, "Can we convince cjnewson88 that 911 was a lie?". Then we can all tackle each of your main arguments. What do you say? Go a head and make the post and detail your biggest problems with the 911 truth information and why you think the official conspiracy theory is valid or any problems you might have with the official conspiracy theory.

edit: apology? we deserve a gold damn medal. lol
__________________
Check out my greasemonkey script embed tweak

Last edited by groen; 25-07-2012 at 08:27 PM.
groen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2012, 11:46 PM   #37
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by groen View Post
If you want we can make another thread called, "Can we convince cjnewson88 that 911 was a lie?". Then we can all tackle each of your main arguments. What do you say?
lol groen, it'll never happen

Last edited by cjnewson88; 25-07-2012 at 11:48 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2012, 09:30 PM   #38
skanny
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: G.C.H.Q Cheltenham
Posts: 1,296
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Nope, under no circumstance would you ever want an engine to disconnect from the aircraft body. Not only does this of course take away the thrust capability of the aircraft, but it changes the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft to the point where all the reference speeds are vastly different. There was a case of a DC-10 which lost an engine on take off. On it's climb out, the pilots flew it at the speed which it was supposed to for a single engine climb, however because the engine had actually detached from the body, that speed was no longer accurate, in fact it was higher. The aircraft stalled and crash. I believe it killed all on board.



You're going to try and tell me an aircraft in a steep descent with power on cannot accelerate to 550mph for the seconds just before it hits a target??? This is why I cannot stand Pilots for Truth. This is basic stuff.


cj....i believe you may be mistaken, my apologies for taking so long to reply but i had to check i wasn't making stuff up, wouldn't want to post stuff that was inaccurate would we now?

linky ...
watch from 30:00 ... Fuse pin *designed to fail*


doesn't this directly counter what you said relative to what i stated and wondered if you have anything further to add on the subject at hand.

this is basic stuff

Last edited by skanny; 26-07-2012 at 09:46 PM.
skanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2012, 12:07 AM   #39
cjnewson88
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Good find skanny, I wasn't aware the 747 had this type of precaution in place. I'll look into it and see if 767's also have these.

Edit: Would appear so. Reading into it, it seems they were initially in place to allow an engine to break off if it connects with the ground during a wheels up landing, however can also fail under severe turbulence, and severe engine vibrations. There is no information I can find as of yet which states what g loading would be required to fail the fuse pins.

Edit: Something interesting, in 2004 the FAA put out an Airworthiness Directive for 767-300 series aircraft to rework the struts and fuse pins in order to prevent them from failing too easily.

Last edited by cjnewson88; 27-07-2012 at 12:27 AM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2012, 12:31 AM   #40
the mighty zhiba
Inactive
 
the mighty zhiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 20,828
Likes: 5,989 (2,995 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I have never had much patience for Pilots for Truth. On the off chance that I have viewed or watched their material, I have found it frustratingly inaccurate, to the point where even someone with a private pilot knowledge of aviation could understand better.
This says a lot - that you can not accept the word of trained pilots who are seeking truth, many of whom have thousands of hours flying time, when they question the main points of 911?

If 911 falls apart on the very nature and practicalities of novice pilots' abilities in flying airliners that they have never flown before, in extreme conditions at low altitude, with exacting precission - then the whole official story falls down. If the very basic tenant of the OS fails to hold water, how can the rest of what it says even stand up to scrutiny?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post


Quote:
Originally Posted by groen View Post
If you want we can make another thread called, "Can we convince cjnewson88 that 911 was a lie?". Then we can all tackle each of your main arguments. What do you say?
lol groen, it'll never happen
If your truth was so unshakable, why not take the chance to show the doubters how your 'main arguments' are infalable?

Last edited by The Mighty Zhiba; 27-07-2012 at 12:32 AM.
the mighty zhiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
9/11 truth, conspiracy, cover up

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.