Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Alternate Boards => Conspiracy Forum => Topic started by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 12:18:43 AM

Title: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 12:18:43 AM
Can there be a "Conspiracy" forum without a thread on 9/11 Conspiracies? I don't think so.

These are not (as far as I'm concerned) conspiracies per se, let's just call them "curious irregularities".

1) The Twin Towers:

The towers were designed to take a direct hit from a Boeing 707 and not fall. While it has been pointed out that the 707 is smaller than the 757 and 767 which hit the Twin Tower, it also has 4 engines, doubling the potential for structural damage. The 707 is also older technology with less lightweight composites and more heavy aluminum and steel in its construction.

With that said, here is my problem with the attack on the Twin Towers. I can see one airliner hitting one of the towers in such a way that it causes the tower structure to fail and collapse. Every golfer stands the chance of getting a hole in one. But two holes in one on the same course on the same day? Figure the odds!

2) The Pentagon Attack:

The plane which struck the Pentagon has to have been one of the "luckiest" shots in the world! From official FAA radar and black box recordings, the flight path of this aircraft has been reconstructed by a number of individuals and organizations. In short, the aircraft flew past the Pentagon and then began a descending 270 Deg turn to the right starting at about 4000 feet above ground level arriving at the perfect angle and altitude to hit the side of Pentagon almost dead center - all the while avoiding other buildings and structures which populate the area around the Pentagon.

Keep in mind two very important things. 1) all during this tight turn whoever is flying the plane is facing away from the Pentagon and so he can't see his "target". It is only in the last few seconds that he will be able to see the building and direct the plane towards it. 2) as he loses altitude, the aircraft will be gaining speed, as it gains speed, the controls will become increasingly "sensitive". Very small control input will be turned into very large changes in attitude! The natural tendency for the low time pilot to over control the aircraft will be exacerbated! To think that an inexperienced pilot could successfully carry out a suicide attack under these conditions stretches credibility to the breaking point. There are experienced airline pilots, with no political axe to grind who have come out publicly and stated that even they couldn't fly that profile and hit the Pentagon.     

FWIW, I have over a thousand hours of experience in various Flight Sim programs and even I couldn't duplicate the flight path of Flight 77 and hit the Pentagon in FS2004 - at least not on the first try. Not even close!

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: arpad on September 03, 2011, 06:33:18 AM
Can there be a "Conspiracy" forum without a thread on 9/11 Conspiracies? I don't think so.

These are not (as far as I'm concerned) conspiracies per se, let's just call them "curious irregularities".

1) The Twin Towers:

The towers were designed to take a direct hit from a Boeing 707 and not fall. While it has been pointed out that the 707 is smaller than the 757 and 767 which hit the Twin Tower, it also has 4 engines, doubling the potential for structural damage. The 707 is also older technology with less lightweight composites and more heavy aluminum and steel in its construction.

With that said, here is my problem with the attack on the Twin Towers. I can see one airliner hitting one of the towers in such a way that it causes the tower structure to fail and collapse. Every golfer stands the chance of getting a hole in one. But two holes in one on the same course on the same day? Figure the odds!
A 757/767 are a significantly larger aircraft then a 707 and carries a significantly greater amount of fuel which was what brought down the towers. Not the impacts.

The impacts blew the asbestos fire-cladding off the steel structural members causing much more rapid structural failure then would otherwise have occurred.

Quote
2) The Pentagon Attack:

The plane which struck the Pentagon has to have been one of the "luckiest" shots in the world! From official FAA radar and black box recordings, the flight path of this aircraft has been reconstructed by a number of individuals and organizations. In short, the aircraft flew past the Pentagon and then began a descending 270 Deg turn to the right starting at about 4000 feet above ground level arriving at the perfect angle and altitude to hit the side of Pentagon almost dead center - all the while avoiding other buildings and structures which populate the area around the Pentagon.

Keep in mind two very important things. 1) all during this tight turn whoever is flying the plane is facing away from the Pentagon and so he can't see his "target". It is only in the last few seconds that he will be able to see the building and direct the plane towards it. 2) as he loses altitude, the aircraft will be gaining speed, as it gains speed, the controls will become increasingly "sensitive". Very small control input will be turned into very large changes in attitude! The natural tendency for the low time pilot to over control the aircraft will be exacerbated! To think that an inexperienced pilot could successfully carry out a suicide attack under these conditions stretches credibility to the breaking point. There are experienced airline pilots, with no political axe to grind who have come out publicly and stated that even they couldn't fly that profile and hit the Pentagon.   

FWIW, I have over a thousand hours of experience in various Flight Sim programs and even I couldn't duplicate the flight path of Flight 77 and hit the Pentagon in FS2004 - at least not on the first try. Not even close!

-Dr Watt
I'm OK with the Flight 77 terrorists getting lucky. Overflying the Pentagon was an indication that they'd already missed their target once so were cranking the aircraft around for another try. A try the terrorist-pilot would've known, even with his very limited flight experience, had a pretty poor chance of working.

Also, since all, modern commercial aircraft use electronic flight control augmentation I'm not sure that control inputs don't vary with speed/altitude in order to minimize pilot workload and likelihood of over-controlling, or under-controlling, during critical phases of flight. I might be wrong, pilots being a pretty conservative lot, but the option of maintaining positive control with consist control movements regardless of flight speed would be pretty attractive to someone whose in a position to be very concerned about pleasant outcomes.
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: ISmokePowderedTrout on September 03, 2011, 06:35:35 AM
Can there be a "Conspiracy" forum without a thread on 9/11 Conspiracies? I don't think so.

These are not (as far as I'm concerned) conspiracies per se, let's just call them "curious irregularities".

1) The Twin Towers:

The towers were designed to take a direct hit from a Boeing 707 and not fall. While it has been pointed out that the 707 is smaller than the 757 and 767 which hit the Twin Tower, it also has 4 engines, doubling the potential for structural damage. The 707 is also older technology with less lightweight composites and more heavy aluminum and steel in its construction.

With that said, here is my problem with the attack on the Twin Towers. I can see one airliner hitting one of the towers in such a way that it causes the tower structure to fail and collapse. Every golfer stands the chance of getting a hole in one. But two holes in one on the same course on the same day? Figure the odds!

2) The Pentagon Attack:

The plane which struck the Pentagon has to have been one of the "luckiest" shots in the world! From official FAA radar and black box recordings, the flight path of this aircraft has been reconstructed by a number of individuals and organizations. In short, the aircraft flew past the Pentagon and then began a descending 270 Deg turn to the right starting at about 4000 feet above ground level arriving at the perfect angle and altitude to hit the side of Pentagon almost dead center - all the while avoiding other buildings and structures which populate the area around the Pentagon.

Keep in mind two very important things. 1) all during this tight turn whoever is flying the plane is facing away from the Pentagon and so he can't see his "target". It is only in the last few seconds that he will be able to see the building and direct the plane towards it. 2) as he loses altitude, the aircraft will be gaining speed, as it gains speed, the controls will become increasingly "sensitive". Very small control input will be turned into very large changes in attitude! The natural tendency for the low time pilot to over control the aircraft will be exacerbated! To think that an inexperienced pilot could successfully carry out a suicide attack under these conditions stretches credibility to the breaking point. There are experienced airline pilots, with no political axe to grind who have come out publicly and stated that even they couldn't fly that profile and hit the Pentagon.     

FWIW, I have over a thousand hours of experience in various Flight Sim programs and even I couldn't duplicate the flight path of Flight 77 and hit the Pentagon in FS2004 - at least not on the first try. Not even close!

-Dr Watt

Well, there is the thing about conspiracies: They tend to be light on explanations.

So what was it that hit the Pentagon if not a commercial airliner piloted by a Wahhabist lunatic?

http://youtu.be/t1wQ2BJsgx0 (http://youtu.be/t1wQ2BJsgx0)
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 03, 2011, 07:10:11 AM
A 757/767 are a significantly larger aircraft then a 707 and carries a significantly greater amount of fuel which was what brought down the towers. Not the impacts.

The impacts blew the asbestos fire-cladding off the steel structural members causing much more rapid structural failure then would otherwise have occurred.
I'm OK with the Flight 77 terrorists getting lucky. Overflying the Pentagon was an indication that they'd already missed their target once so were cranking the aircraft around for another try. A try the terrorist-pilot would've known, even with his very limited flight experience, had a pretty poor chance of working.

Also, since all, modern commercial aircraft use electronic flight control augmentation I'm not sure that control inputs don't vary with speed/altitude in order to minimize pilot workload and likelihood of over-controlling, or under-controlling, during critical phases of flight. I might be wrong, pilots being a pretty conservative lot, but the option of maintaining positive control with consist control movements regardless of flight speed would be pretty attractive to someone whose in a position to be very concerned about pleasant outcomes.
I remember reading that the area hit was not asbestos treated, that they had been ordered to cease using it several floors down, that the treatment used wasn't all that good.
Now I could be wrong, since this info was early in the investigation.
But even if they had been treated, you would be correct, once steel starts to burn, it loses it's integrity and the weight of the building alone will collapse each and every floor like dominos.
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 12:18:27 PM
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor6.jpg)

(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor4.jpg)

(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg)

Burned for over a day, much hotter than the World Trade Center fire (as it was more concentrated)
 
The structure did not fail.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html)

For your consideration...

I'm just sayin'...

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 03, 2011, 12:33:49 PM
But was it as tall, or contain the same weight as the WTT?

Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 06:25:52 PM
But was it as tall, or contain the same weight as the WTT?

No, it was 32 stories tall - which, coincidentally, was roughly the height of the WTC towers above the impact zones.

I'm not getting into the engineering aspect of the WTC collapse, I'm just looking at it from the stand point of, I can see one aircraft hitting one of the buildings in such a way as to weaken the structure enough to cause a catastrophic failure. However, when someone tries to tell me that two aircraft, flown by inexperienced pilots hit separate buildings in exactly the same way to cause both structures to fail, well, that just causes the needle on my B.S. detector to Redline!

As for the automatic flight control and assistance functions on Flight 77 which attacked the Pentagon. Yes, they do exist, however, they are controlled (as to on and off) by the pilot. A pilot doesn't want the same feel to the stick at 40 feet as he does at 40,000 feet! The hijackers would have to know what type of augmentation the aircraft had, how to engage it or disengage it as necessary etc... This was information these hijackers clearly didn't have.

Finally, once an aircraft gets down to an altitude equal to about 1/2 the wingspan of the aircraft, it enters what is known as "ground effect". Without getting too technical, it is an increase in lift due to the proximity of the aircraft to the ground. This makes a aircraft which is traveling at high speed close to the ground want to climb, or at least, not want to land. Ask any private pilot who has come in "hot" for a landing what ground effect can do to an otherwise perfect landing!

Also, the big jets have a plethora of warning and alarm systems to keep pilots from doing stupid things - like flying too close to the ground with the wheels up... point the plane at the ground etc... reducing throttle below a certain setting without lowering the landing gear/flaps etc. All of these alarms would be going off at the same time while the hijacker was trying to roll out on a heading to target the side of the Pentagon!

One last thing. I was home, watching T.V. on Sept 11, 2001. After the first aircraft hit the WTC, my wife and I watched the coverage non-stop. Although I can't remember (I have the tape of it somewhere) who the newtalker was, but during the replay of the second aircraft hitting the WTC, he said, "Yes, you see the nose is dropping as it enters the turn just before it strikes the World Trade Center - just what one would expect of an inexperience pilot."

So what, you say. Well, at that time, nobody, certainly not the newsreaders, knew who they hijackers were or who was flying the planes. Why did he say that, and/or who gave him that information...

-Dr Watt
 
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 06:51:14 PM
BTW, I'm not looking to convert anybody. These are just things I've noticed myself that I feel haven't been properly explained.

I don't believe Bush was behind it. I mean, really, someone smart enough to orchestra the attacks of 9/11 would be smart enough to fix an election so it didn't come down to "hanging chads!"  ;D

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 03, 2011, 07:45:46 PM
No, it was 32 stories tall - which, coincidentally, was roughly the height of the WTC towers above the impact zones.

I'm not getting into the engineering aspect of the WTC collapse, I'm just looking at it from the stand point of, I can see one aircraft hitting one of the buildings in such a way as to weaken the structure enough to cause a catastrophic failure. However, when someone tries to tell me that two aircraft, flown by inexperienced pilots hit separate buildings in exactly the same way to cause both structures to fail, well, that just causes the needle on my B.S. detector to Redline!

As for the automatic flight control and assistance functions on Flight 77 which attacked the Pentagon. Yes, they do exist, however, they are controlled (as to on and off) by the pilot. A pilot doesn't want the same feel to the stick at 40 feet as he does at 40,000 feet! The hijackers would have to know what type of augmentation the aircraft had, how to engage it or disengage it as necessary etc... This was information these hijackers clearly didn't have.

Finally, once an aircraft gets down to an altitude equal to about 1/2 the wingspan of the aircraft, it enters what is known as "ground effect". Without getting too technical, it is an increase in lift due to the proximity of the aircraft to the ground. This makes a aircraft which is traveling at high speed close to the ground want to climb, or at least, not want to land. Ask any private pilot who has come in "hot" for a landing what ground effect can do to an otherwise perfect landing!

Also, the big jets have a plethora of warning and alarm systems to keep pilots from doing stupid things - like flying too close to the ground with the wheels up... point the plane at the ground etc... reducing throttle below a certain setting without lowering the landing gear/flaps etc. All of these alarms would be going off at the same time while the hijacker was trying to roll out on a heading to target the side of the Pentagon!

One last thing. I was home, watching T.V. on Sept 11, 2001. After the first aircraft hit the WTC, my wife and I watched the coverage non-stop. Although I can't remember (I have the tape of it somewhere) who the newtalker was, but during the replay of the second aircraft hitting the WTC, he said, "Yes, you see the nose is dropping as it enters the turn just before it strikes the World Trade Center - just what one would expect of an inexperience pilot."

So what, you say. Well, at that time, nobody, certainly not the newsreaders, knew who they hijackers were or who was flying the planes. Why did he say that, and/or who gave him that information...

-Dr Watt
 
I can see this is pointless, you are doing way too much assuming for any real debate.
I want cold hard facts, not opinions, or simple guessing.
Nor do you know just how much knowledge these guys had about aircraft.

And I don't fall into conspiracy theories over what some moron at a TV station said, you are jumping to a conclusion that he was somehow privy to some secret plot by the government.

They were terrorists, period!
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 08:09:19 PM
I can see this is pointless, you are doing way too much assuming for any real debate.
I want cold hard facts, not opinions, or simple guessing.

If I had "cold hard facts", it wouldn't be a "theory" now would it?

Quote
Nor do you know just how much knowledge these guys had about aircraft.

My assessment of the piloting abilities of the hijackers are based on news reports, based on official government information - such as flight school records, FAA flight examiner reports... etc. The following is fairly common knowledge about Hani Hanjour - the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 77:

This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."

I've personally flown out of that airfield. I know the instructors there. If they said he couldn't fly, he couldn't fly!

Quote
And I don't fall into conspiracy theories over what some moron at a TV station said, you are jumping to a conclusion that he was somehow privy to some secret plot by the government.

It wouldn't be the first time the Media covered for the Government...

Believe what you will. It's still a free country - so far...

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 03, 2011, 08:25:16 PM
If I had "cold hard facts", it wouldn't be a "theory" now would it?

My assessment of the piloting abilities of the hijackers are based on news reports, based on official government information - such as flight school records, FAA flight examiner reports... etc. The following is fairly common knowledge about Hani Hanjour - the alleged hijacker pilot of Flight 77:

This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."

I've personally flown out of that airfield. I know the instructors there. If they said he couldn't fly, he couldn't fly!

It wouldn't be the first time the Media covered for the Government...

Believe what you will. It's still a free country - so far...

-Dr Watt
So what, that is a far cry from an airliner and a flight simulator, he only needed to know how to aim it, not land it.

So you are saying all those people that phoned loved ones from the plan during the time all this was taking place, or those that died are all made up?

For a conspiracy to carry any credibility, it has to have contradicting facts to reality, this one has none.
You want us to somehow believe the Gov planted charges in the WTC towers and found 20 terrorists to take the fall in a gov plot to start a war in the M/E?

You do know Alquiada had attempted to blow up the WTC years before and failed, and are on record stating they would try again and succeed?
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 03, 2011, 08:47:47 PM
So what, that is a far cry from an airliner and a flight simulator, he only needed to know how to aim it, not land it.

Sigh... It is more complex than that, as I've tried to explain. I have flow real aircraft, I do not have a pilot's license due to a medical condition, but I have flow real aircraft roughly 40 hours flight time all told. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

Quote
So you are saying all those people that phoned loved ones from the plan during the time all this was taking place, or those that died are all made up?

Where did I say that? I never said that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. My only implication is that I highly doubt that Hanjour was at the controls. If I were to guess (and it is only a guess) I would say that the aircraft flew a per-programed flight plan to make it look as if it had been flown by an inexperienced pilot.

Quote
For a conspiracy to carry any credibility, it has to have contradicting facts to reality, this one has none.
You want us to somehow believe the Gov planted charges in the WTC towers and found 20 terrorists to take the fall in a gov plot to start a war in the M/E?

Do you want me to believe that 3 out of 4 aircraft, hijacked by radicals and flown by inexperienced pilots were somehow able to, not only evade the air defenses of one of the most heavily traveled and tightly controlled air spaces - in the World - but were able to carry out successful attacks against, in the case of the Pentagon, one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world?

-Dr Watt

Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 04, 2011, 08:16:32 AM
Sigh... It is more complex than that, as I've tried to explain. I have flow real aircraft, I do not have a pilot's license due to a medical condition, but I have flow real aircraft roughly 40 hours flight time all told. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

 
Ground friction also known as thermals happens at all altitudes and to claim these planes were experiencing them is a leap into fantasy, since you have no way of knowing.

Quote
Where did I say that? I never said that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. My only implication is that I highly doubt that Hanjour was at the controls. If I were to guess (and it is only a guess) I would say that the aircraft flew a per-programed flight plan to make it look as if it had been flown by an inexperienced pilot.

Wow, more fantasy. Now you know how rumors start.
Quote
Do you want me to believe that 3 out of 4 aircraft, hijacked by radicals and flown by inexperienced pilots were somehow able to, not only evade the air defenses of one of the most heavily traveled and tightly controlled air spaces - in the World - but were able to carry out successful attacks against, in the case of the Pentagon, one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world?

-Dr Watt
Because it actually happened?
You put too much faith in the Gov and it's ability to protect us.
Turn off the TV, 24 is only a show, not reality.

I suppose the moon walk was a conspiracy as well, we never really went there?
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 04, 2011, 08:25:11 AM
There is just one more thing I would like to add, and this refers to Al Quaida's stated desire to bring down at least one of the Twin Towers.

Given the fact that Al Quiada had previously tried (and failed) to bring down one of the Twin Towers, why did they attack both of the towers? Attacking each tower with a single aircraft couldn't guarantee them that either tower would fall. However, a concerted attack, both planes hitting the same tower, would have give them a greater chance of success.

Just looking at it from the attackers point of view, with the stated goal of bringing down at least one of the Twin Towers, I would have told my pilots to 1) both attack the same building. 2) hit that building as low as possible!

Of course, we know, that is not what they did.

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 04, 2011, 08:32:43 AM
Ground friction also known as thermals happens at all altitudes and to claim these planes were experiencing them is a leap into fantasy, since you have no way of knowing.

"Ground Friction" has nothing to do with either ground effect or thermals - please, don't embarrass yourself any further!

Quote
Wow, more fantasy. Now you know how rumors start.Because it actually happened?
You put too much faith in the Gov and it's ability to protect us.
Turn off the TV, 24 is only a show, not reality.

For 40 years it was just a rumor that Roosevelt knew that the Japansese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and let it happen anyway. Today, we know that that is pretty much exactly what happened.

Quote
I suppose the moon walk was a conspiracy as well, we never really went there?

Can we stick to one subject at a time? FWIW, the real conspiracy about the moon landings is not that we didn't go there, we did, it is why we didn't go back (Cue Xfiles music!)  ::)

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 04, 2011, 08:41:47 AM
First, Osama wanted to hit just one tower if memory serves me correctly, hoping it would cripple the other beyond repair.
But the fact that a 2nd tower was hit may be more due to an inexperienced pilot.

And at that altitude, it is unlikely that ground effect was an effect, but like I said, thermals would be more likely Seeing how they were well above ground effect.

You do realize to the casual observer you are looking pretty silly here, right?
Lets just stop here before too much damage is done. ;)
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: taxed on September 04, 2011, 12:57:22 PM
This is interesting...
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: taxed on September 04, 2011, 01:15:22 PM


I'm OK with the Flight 77 terrorists getting lucky. Overflying the Pentagon was an indication that they'd already missed their target once so were cranking the aircraft around for another try. A try the terrorist-pilot would've known, even with his very limited flight experience, had a pretty poor chance of working.

Also, since all, modern commercial aircraft use electronic flight control augmentation I'm not sure that control inputs don't vary with speed/altitude in order to minimize pilot workload and likelihood of over-controlling, or under-controlling, during critical phases of flight. I might be wrong, pilots being a pretty conservative lot, but the option of maintaining positive control with consist control movements regardless of flight speed would be pretty attractive to someone whose in a position to be very concerned about pleasant outcomes.


That scares me that it is pretty easy to fly into that airspace and hit the Pentagon!
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Eyesabide on September 04, 2011, 06:26:09 PM
Which theory are we discussing? It seemed we just jumped into the possibility the aircraft used in the attacks were not flown by inexperienced pilots.
Is it being theorized the aircraft were remotely flown? 
As far as thermals, ground effect, mechanical turbulence, inversion layers, and other outside factors go, if I were flying an airplane into a building I might flinch and pull the nose up a bit while instinctively bracing for impact. For the same reason, I might panic and turn away from the horrific sight of the damage the first aircraft did to the building I also was supposed to hit. I have not double checked yet, but I might have seen that the second aircraft hit the tower at an unusual attitude for an aircraft supposedly aiming for the second tower. He might have hit the second tower by accident.
 This is speculation, of course, I have done no research.  I do not even have a hypothesis yet. So, Which theory are we discussing?
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Shanghai Dan on September 04, 2011, 06:59:32 PM
2) as he loses altitude, the aircraft will be gaining speed, as it gains speed, the controls will become increasingly "sensitive".
Funny, nearly every real airplane I've flown on (and that's probably 35-40 a year) have this amazing ability to actually SLOW DOWN as they lose altitude.  It's kind of a standard procedure when landing a plane...
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Eyesabide on September 04, 2011, 07:25:17 PM
I think pilots use angle of attack and flaps to slow down, and possibly reduce thrust. Just thinking.
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Shanghai Dan on September 04, 2011, 07:48:44 PM
I think pilots use angle of attack and flaps to slow down, and possibly reduce thrust. Just thinking.
Nah, can't possibly be done - we've been told that losing altitude always comes with higher speed.  No way you could lose altitude and slow down.  Never mind it's done thousands of times a day...

Here's a great video showing what's possible - not a jet aircraft, but impressive!

short STOL landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2-HRDsVk5Y#)
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: BILLY Defiant on September 04, 2011, 10:33:43 PM
.

Do you want me to believe that 3 out of 4 aircraft, hijacked by radicals and flown by inexperienced pilots were somehow able to, not only evade the air defenses of one of the most heavily traveled and tightly controlled air spaces - in the World - but were able to carry out successful attacks against, in the case of the Pentagon, one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world?

-Dr Watt



 
Yes, because that is what happened, I hi lighted the part about best guarded buildings in the world and while you may be right you are over looking something. Their security system was geared towards to things, prevention of electronic surveillance and ....prevention of as ground attack, bombing, truck bombing, ditrect weapons fire, suicide squad...it was NOT geared to prevent an AIR ATTACK...that is the weak link the terrorists uncovered thru years of intelligence gathering.
 
Remember, the stage for 9/11 attacks was set and uncovered in Manila in 1995...that is when we were TOLD, presented EVIDENCE that an air attack using a hijacked commercial jet liner flown into a tall building was being planned, specifically mentioned was the US Embassy in Manila and the sears tower in Chicago.
 
I bow to your knowledge of aircraft, but bow to my expertise in my profession...security/intelligence gathering.
 
 
Billy
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 05, 2011, 05:20:47 PM
First, Osama wanted to hit just one tower if memory serves me correctly, hoping it would cripple the other beyond repair.
But the fact that a 2nd tower was hit may be more due to an inexperienced pilot.

Kind of supports my theory. Two inexperienced pilots, hitting two different targets in exactly the right way to caused catastrophic failure in both targets? Seems a tad incredible to me.

Quote
And at that altitude, it is unlikely that ground effect was an effect, but like I said, thermals would be more likely Seeing how they were well above ground effect.

I never said the Twin Tower aircraft were affected by ground effect, only Flight 77.

Quote
You do realize to the casual observer you are looking pretty silly here, right?
Lets just stop here before too much damage is done. ;)

What fun would that be? :))

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 05, 2011, 05:32:07 PM
Funny, nearly every real airplane I've flown on (and that's probably 35-40 a year) have this amazing ability to actually SLOW DOWN as they lose altitude.  It's kind of a standard procedure when landing a plane...

Yes, it is done by a competent pilot by reducing power while maintaining altitude until the desired airspeed is achieved and then lowering the nose ( at which point the aircraft starts to descend ) to maintain the desired airspeed. Flaps are further used to enable a steeper descent while maintaining a given airspeed.

For you non-pilots out there - point the nose down, you go faster, point the nose up, you slow down.  ::)

According to damage estimates at the Pentagon the estimated speed of Flight 77 when it hit the building was roughly 530 MPH.

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 05, 2011, 05:40:53 PM

 
Yes, because that is what happened, I hi lighted the part about best guarded buildings in the world and while you may be right you are over looking something. Their security system was geared towards to things, prevention of electronic surveillance and ....prevention of as ground attack, bombing, truck bombing, ditrect weapons fire, suicide squad...it was NOT geared to prevent an AIR ATTACK...that is the weak link the terrorists uncovered thru years of intelligence gathering.
 
Remember, the stage for 9/11 attacks was set and uncovered in Manila in 1995...that is when we were TOLD, presented EVIDENCE that an air attack using a hijacked commercial jet liner flown into a tall building was being planned, specifically mentioned was the US Embassy in Manila and the sears tower in Chicago.
 
I bow to your knowledge of aircraft, but bow to my expertise in my profession...security/intelligence gathering.
 
 
Billy

All the more reason why (six years later) we were so unprepared for such an attack.

I don't doubt you or your expertise for a minute!

BTW you do know that the CIA had a "front" operation that worked out of the same hangar at the same airport where two of the hijackers received their flight training, don't you?

-Dr Watt

Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Solar on September 05, 2011, 05:40:59 PM
Kind of supports my theory. Two inexperienced pilots, hitting two different targets in exactly the right way to caused catastrophic failure in both targets? Seems a tad incredible to me.
Who says it was exactly the right spot, they could have hit anywhere in the building resulting in wide spread fire.
Quote
I never said the Twin Tower aircraft were affected by ground effect, only Flight 77.
Ahh OK, but if you look at trajectory, there wasn't really anytime for ground effect to be of issue.
Quote
What fun would that be? :))

-Dr Watt
Good point. :))
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: BILLY Defiant on September 05, 2011, 05:57:48 PM
All the more reason why (six years later) we were so unprepared for such an attack.

I don't doubt you or your expertise for a minute!

BTW you do know that the CIA had a "front" operation that worked out of the same hangar at the same airport where two of the hijackers received their flight training, don't you?

-Dr Watt



 
That "front" operation was involved in Iran/ Contra-Nicaragua...according to one of the former pilots I know involved in that.... ;)
 
 
Billy
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 05, 2011, 06:00:17 PM

 
That "front" operation was involved in Iran/ Contra-Nicaragua...according to one of the former pilots I know involved in that.... ;)
 
 
Billy

Iran/Contra was still going on in the late 90s? ???

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on September 05, 2011, 06:02:31 PM

 
That "front" operation was involved in Iran/ Contra-Nicaragua...according to one of the former pilots I know involved in that.... ;)
 
 
Billy

We need to talk about Mena Arkansas sometime!  ;)

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: taxed on September 05, 2011, 06:03:46 PM
We need to talk about Mena Arkansas sometime!  ;)

-Dr Watt


Clinton!
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Shanghai Dan on September 05, 2011, 06:21:02 PM
Yes, it is done by a competent pilot by reducing power while maintaining altitude until the desired airspeed is achieved and then lowering the nose ( at which point the aircraft starts to descend ) to maintain the desired airspeed. Flaps are further used to enable a steeper descent while maintaining a given airspeed.

For you non-pilots out there - point the nose down, you go faster, point the nose up, you slow down.  ::)

According to damage estimates at the Pentagon the estimated speed of Flight 77 when it hit the building was roughly 530 MPH.

-Dr Watt
I've flown a little bit - even had a pilot's license for a decade (until I let it lapse when I started traveling too much to really get the number of annual hours needed).  I know how to fly, and what can be done. 

As far as the crash speed, test results indicate something closer to 170 MPH (http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html), or 250 ft/s - not 530 MPH.
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: BILLY Defiant on September 06, 2011, 05:18:06 PM
We need to talk about Mena Arkansas sometime!  ;)

-Dr Watt

Don't know much about that one.
 
But, If you want to talk about Vince Foster I can tell you about that from some first hand knowledge.
 
 
Billy
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: Dr_Watt on June 27, 2012, 09:38:40 PM
I've flown a little bit - even had a pilot's license for a decade (until I let it lapse when I started traveling too much to really get the number of annual hours needed).  I know how to fly, and what can be done. 

As far as the crash speed, test results indicate something closer to 170 MPH (http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html), or 250 ft/s - not 530 MPH.

Sorry, kind of forgot about this thread.

The 530 mph number I got was derived from black box data of Flight 77. I went to the site you linked to and I think you may have misinterpreted what they were trying to say.

At 170 mph, Flight 77 (based on weight etc) would be only about 10 mph above stall speed!

-Dr Watt
Title: Re: 9/11 "Conspiracies"
Post by: mdgiles on August 10, 2012, 01:14:31 PM
People forget how the WTC was built. Normally skyscrapers are built with an internal framework which the floors are attached to. But to maximize the office space, the WTC was built like a tube with all the strength on the outside, and a framework hung from the inner side of the outer walls. Go pull the tube out of a roll of paper towels. As long as the tube is unbroken, it will support a great deal of weight, against the force of gravity. Now take a pair of scissors and cut the tube. You'll find that the tube can support almost no weight at all. When the plane crashed into those particular buildings, they destroyed the structural integrity  of the outside load bearing walls. Then gravity takes over. And in this universe gravity pretty much always wins in the end. with the walls weakened, the WTC could no longer bear the weight of the upper floors down it comes, and as the floors pancake down, even more weight is accelerating into the floors below. BTW., on the skill of the pilots; isn't it true that more piloting skill is necessary to fly a small plane, whereas in a jumbo jet, much of the work is done by computers?