• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dispelling Myths: The "Impossible Maneuver"

Deuce said:
Slamming into a reinforced concrete structure at five hundred miles and hour, then subjected to a jet fuel fire. Exactly what part of those cheap fabric seats do you expect would remain intact?
Click to expand...

The entire seat was not fabric, they had metal frames. If the nose of the supposed plane impacted at 500 mph then the tail would not maintain that speed for long.

Where are the pictures of the tail section by the way? This is not the first airliner crash in history. But so many others left so much more recognizable debris. :lamo

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
The entire seat was not fabric, they had metal frames. If the nose of the supposed plane impacted at 500 mph then the tail would not maintain that sped for long.

Where are the pictures of the tail section by the way? This is not the first airliner crash in history. But so many others left so much more recognizable debris. :lamo

psik
Click to expand...

They have thin, light aluminum frames. They're not that durable. The airframe is also largely aluminum. You can destroy aluminum with a campfire.

Most airline crashes don't happen at that combination of speed and angle of impact. Nearly straight-on at 500mph is far more violent than a typical crash. (where the pilots are, you know, trying to save the plane instead of destroy it) Expecting large intact pieces is ludicrous.

From the first structural engineer on the scene:
"It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
Click to expand...
 
Now, some of the tougher materials survive better. The engine cores, for example, are heavier steel, titanium, etc. Some of these parts survive in a somewhat-recognizable fashion.

pentagon-engine5.jpg

And before it gets brought up again, anyone who thinks the impact hole should have been about the same as the aircraft's wingspan has watched too many cartoons. Thin, hollow aluminum wing filled with flammable liquid vs. reinforced concrete structure designed with bomb blasts is not going to leave a Loony Toons style opening.
 
This video gives an idea how some airframe materials behave on 500mph impact. (and this was a fighter jet, their structures are built more heavily than airliners because their G-loading requirements are far higher) While the Pentagon isn't built as a solid piece of reinforced concrete like this test barrier, it is a structure that is heavily reinforced against bomb blasts.

 
psikeyhackr said:
The entire seat was not fabric, they had metal frames. If the nose of the supposed plane impacted at 500 mph then the tail would not maintain that speed for long.

Where are the pictures of the tail section by the way? This is not the first airliner crash in history. But so many others left so much more recognizable debris. :lamo

psik
Click to expand...


As Deuce pointed out you shouldn't expect such things. Here is a pic of another crash, high angle high speed and not much left of the plane.
PS.jpg

Most crashes are low angle and at as slow a speed as possible as the pilots tend to want to survive.
 
Deuce said:
Flying past Vmo does not require skill. It requires thrust. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

But you just proved my point: my experience was just a blatant and desperate diversion attempt on your part. I could show you proof I have ten thousand hours in a 757 and you wouldn't change your mind on a single thing I've said.

Further proof you're not a jet pilot, you're now claiming I've never flown over Vmo. Every jet pilot has had that alarm sound at some point. Since you've never been in a jet, you're unaware of this.

Unless there's someone who went straight from a piston to an Airbus, I guess. Baby's First Autopilot generally prevents airspeed excursions.
Click to expand...

Notice also how he is trying to divert from his failure with ground effect, which he will not talk about again for a while to the new fail of Vmo +90. Just dont expect him to explain why Vmo +90 requires great piloting skill he will just harp on about how it does because of reasons that only "real" pilots such as an illustrious "flight instructor" as himself can understand.
Seriously have you ever met a flight instructor so completely unable to explain themselves as HD?
 
Deuce said:
They have thin, light aluminum frames. They're not that durable. The airframe is also largely aluminum. You can destroy aluminum with a campfire.
Click to expand...

You may be able to "melt" a little aluminum in a campfire but you will still end up with molten aluminum that will solidify quickly.

So where are the pictures of all that deformed aluminum?

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
You may be able to "melt" a little aluminum in a campfire but you will still end up with molten aluminum that will solidify quickly.

So where are the pictures of all that deformed aluminum?

psik
Click to expand...

What, like in discrete blobs with a giant sticker on it saying "THIS CAME FROM THE PLANE AND NOT OFFICE FURNITURE" ?
trb.jpg

Good luck with that buddy. I really don't know why you expect one could identify an airline seat after it disintegrated, shattered, and melted.​
 
Deuce said:
Flying past Vmo does not require skill. It requires thrust. This is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

But you just proved my point: my experience was just a blatant and desperate diversion attempt on your part. I could show you proof I have ten thousand hours in a 757 and you wouldn't change your mind on a single thing I've said.

Further proof you're not a jet pilot, you're now claiming I've never flown over Vmo. Every jet pilot has had that alarm sound at some point. Since you've never been in a jet, you're unaware of this.

Unless there's someone who went straight from a piston to an Airbus, I guess. Baby's First Autopilot generally prevents airspeed excursions.
Click to expand...

No Deuce, asking about your ratings and experience was not a diversion, it was a genuine and courteous question, and your steady refusal to mention it makes it all the more likely you are somehow bluffing.

If it turned out that you were a high time 757 pilot it would change nothing at all for me. Those pilots with names, ratings and experiences at PFT simply have more credibility than you. In other words, it's not you, it's them. As I've already said, you as the OP have not even come close to overcoming the bar THEY set many years ago at PFT.

That is MY perspective only. Your steady dodging is simply suggestive of a person who is hiding something, and the fact that the substance of your claim is so ridiculous all I can do is laugh. Walter Mitty or airline pilot? My guess is the former. :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
If it turned out that you were a high time 757 pilot it would change nothing at all for me.
Click to expand...

Precisely my point. Why should I bother? I have nothing to gain from posting my experience for you again.

You've changed your alleged experience numerous times. That's my perspective.
 
psikeyhackr said:
You may be able to "melt" a little aluminum in a campfire but you will still end up with molten aluminum that will solidify quickly.

So where are the pictures of all that deformed aluminum?

psik
Click to expand...

I was thinking of that issue just yesterday with the horrible pictures from Santa Rosa with burned vehicles. At least one showed, and David Muir mentioned it, the melted aluminum from somewhere inside the car that had quickly solidified into silver puddles. I was melting aluminum in tin cans when I was in high school. It melts quickly and solidifies quickly.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I was thinking of that issue just yesterday with the horrible pictures from Santa Rosa with burned vehicles. At least one showed, and David Muir mentioned it, the melted aluminum from somewhere inside the car that had quickly solidified into silver puddles. I was melting aluminum in tin cans when I was in high school. It melts quickly and solidifies quickly.
Click to expand...

Which explains the molten metal seen streaming from the structure as it burned, yes. Remember when you thought that meant thermite?
 
Deuce said:
Precisely my point. Why should I bother? I have nothing to gain from posting my experience for you again.

You've changed your alleged experience numerous times. That's my perspective.
Click to expand...

And he has made ridiculous claims about aviation as well leading one to think that perhaps his qualifications exist only in his imagination
 
Quag said:
As Deuce pointed out you shouldn't expect such things. Here is a pic of another crash, high angle high speed and not much left of the plane.

Most crashes are low angle and at as slow a speed as possible as the pilots tend to want to survive.
Click to expand...

65 tons of airliner supposedly crashed in a confined space. It could not spread over a broad area.

People have to come up with EXCUSES for what has not been found. Otherwise they would have to admit that it was not there. That would be a problem.

psik
 
Deuce said:
Precisely my point. Why should I bother? I have nothing to gain from posting my experience for you again.

You've changed your alleged experience numerous times. That's my perspective.
Click to expand...

What you have to gain Deuce, is simply credibility in aviation matters here at DP, nothing else. You come across rather like George Bush--a man making grand statements in a manner that suggests he has something to hide, something he would rather not acknowledge, for whatever reason it may be.
 
psikeyhackr said:
65 tons of airliner supposedly crashed in a confined space. It could not spread over a broad area.

People have to come up with EXCUSES for what has not been found. Otherwise they would have to admit that it was not there. That would be a problem.

psik
Click to expand...

What type of plane crashed in the pic I showed you?
How much of an area was it spread over?
 
Thoreau72 said:
What you have to gain Deuce, is simply credibility in aviation matters here at DP, nothing else. You come across rather like George Bush--a man making grand statements in a manner that suggests he has something to hide, something he would rather not acknowledge, for whatever reason it may be.
Click to expand...

But credibility doesn't matter to you, you outright said that. You outright said you wouldn't believe anything I said either way. So why pretend you're concerned with my credibility? Why the lies and diversions?

You dodge the points I make. You haven't even acknowledged that the observed speed was only 10% above a tested dive speed. You haven't even acknowledged that G-loading never exceeded aircraft limits at any time. You haven't even acknowledged bank angle never exceeded about 40 degrees. You haven't even watched the video that clearly demonstrates the "maneuver" was a simple turn followed by a straight dive. So why all the pretense? What do you gain from all the blathering?
 
Deuce said:
But credibility doesn't matter to you, you outright said that. You outright said you wouldn't believe anything I said either way. So why pretend you're concerned with my credibility? Why the lies and diversions?

You dodge the points I make. You haven't even acknowledged that the observed speed was only 10% above a tested dive speed. You haven't even acknowledged that G-loading never exceeded aircraft limits at any time. You haven't even acknowledged bank angle never exceeded about 40 degrees. You haven't even watched the video that clearly demonstrates the "maneuver" was a simple turn followed by a straight dive. So why all the pretense? What do you gain from all the blathering?
Click to expand...

He gains the ability to maintain the delusion that the ebil govt was behind it all. Like most Cters if he admits even one of his claims is wrong then he has to question all the other claims that he got from CT sites and then perhaps admit to himself he has been duped. Much better to go on thinking he is one of the special few who have more insight into the world than admit his own shortcomings.
 
Deuce said:
But credibility doesn't matter to you, you outright said that. You outright said you wouldn't believe anything I said either way. So why pretend you're concerned with my credibility? Why the lies and diversions?

You dodge the points I make. You haven't even acknowledged that the observed speed was only 10% above a tested dive speed. You haven't even acknowledged that G-loading never exceeded aircraft limits at any time. You haven't even acknowledged bank angle never exceeded about 40 degrees. You haven't even watched the video that clearly demonstrates the "maneuver" was a simple turn followed by a straight dive. So why all the pretense? What do you gain from all the blathering?
Click to expand...

Haven't they done barrels rolls in similar sized aircraft? I would say the maneuver was possible.
 
Deuce said:
But credibility doesn't matter to you, you outright said that. You outright said you wouldn't believe anything I said either way. So why pretend you're concerned with my credibility? Why the lies and diversions?

You dodge the points I make. You haven't even acknowledged that the observed speed was only 10% above a tested dive speed. You haven't even acknowledged that G-loading never exceeded aircraft limits at any time. You haven't even acknowledged bank angle never exceeded about 40 degrees. You haven't even watched the video that clearly demonstrates the "maneuver" was a simple turn followed by a straight dive. So why all the pretense? What do you gain from all the blathering?
Click to expand...

I find it interesting what T72 said about credibility on DP regarding aviation. It does not take a reader long to determine who is more creditable. Just follow the sources or lack off used by some. Just follow who answers questions with questions or completely ignores the questions and do not provide an answer/opinion.

I personally would not worry too much about T72 making adverse comments regarding aviation experience in others.
 
Thoreau72 said:
What you have to gain Deuce, is simply credibility in aviation matters here at DP, nothing else. You come across rather like George Bush--a man making grand statements in a manner that suggests he has something to hide, something he would rather not acknowledge, for whatever reason it may be.
Click to expand...

If there is anybody lacking credibility in aviation matters, or just credibility at all, that is definitely you.
Let’s see who sounds like they know more about aviation. Deuce who can explain basic topics like ground effect or VMO or you who constantly gets caught posting false info on the topic and really can only deflect or evade questions.

It is quite obvious to anyone but a CTer that you have zero credibility. But then again a lack of being able to think is why they are CTers in the first place
 
You think Thoreau72 will claim to not remember next time?

vRyHxkPl.jpg
 
psikeyhackr said:
65 tons of airliner supposedly crashed in a confined space. It could not spread over a broad area.

People have to come up with EXCUSES for what has not been found. Otherwise they would have to admit that it was not there. That would be a problem.

psik
Click to expand...

So what hit the Pentagon?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom