Flight 93 Responders

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: jpete On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:48 pm

Lightning wrote:
grumpy wrote:One example would be the plane flying at 500 mph three feet off the ground.


My point being, it could definitely hit the ground at 500 Mph if it were pointed down from 1000 feet..


But it wasn't. It was allegedly flown by a guy who took a couple of lessons in a Cessna.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Lightning On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:59 pm

Yes good point... Big or small they all "work" the same way. A Cessna pilot could absolutely fly an airliner, maybe not very well hahaha but he could.. That's all it takes..

Flaps up and engines wide open with any decent and that plane would be hitting high speed, I believe it could absolutely hit 500 under these conditions at low altitude..

These planes are designed to fly fast when they need to and on the same token are designed to fly slow,,, when they need to.. Manipulate conditions just right and it will fly fast when it shouldn't be... :shock:
Last edited by Lightning on Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lightning
 
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1537G
Coal Size/Type: Nut/Stove Size Mix

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: grumpy On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:07 pm

Lightning wrote:Yes good point... Big or small they all "work" the same way. A Cessna pilot could absolutely fly an airliner, maybe not very well hahaha but he could.. That's all it takes..


I'm thinking not, thats like saying a Cessna pilot could fly a F15 or a B2, not so simple. I drive a car, I don't think I could jump in a rail car and go from zero to 250mph + in a 1/4 mile. Yeah the basics are the same BUT.
grumpy
 


Re: Flight 93

PostBy: jpete On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:07 pm

Lightning wrote:Yes good point... Big or small they all "work" the same way. A Cessna pilot could absolutely fly an airliner, maybe not very well hahaha but he could....


Full bore at treetop level? Maybe he "could" but my money is on "cart wheeling flaming wreck." :D
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Flyer5 On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:11 pm

Lightning is correct. 500mph would be easy in a dive with a fully loaded airliner of today. Your rate of assent or descent is controlled by the throttle want to go higher add power want to go lower lower the throttle. Air speed is controlled by the elevator or stabilator depending on the aircraft. Want to go slow raise the nose want to go fast lower the nose. Want to fly level match the throttle to the angle of attack. Aircraft still follow the laws of physics so they still have a terminal velocity but a fully loaded airliner would probably fall apart before reaching that speed.
Flyer5
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Lightning On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:14 pm

grumpy wrote:I'm thinking not, thats like saying a Cessna pilot could fly a F15 or a B2, not so simple.


That's a little different.. Fighter planes are a bit more complicated.. But yes, I'm sure a Cessna pilot with any knowledge of where the controls are on the airliner could absolutely fly it. You gotta remember, big planes are designed to be simple to fly to make them safer, many lives involved.. They can almost fly themselves.. Just ask the auto pilot :lol:
Lightning
 
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1537G
Coal Size/Type: Nut/Stove Size Mix

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: grumpy On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:17 pm

I'm thinking we should stop with this, so far we are half right and half wrong including me, so lets not make fools of our self's thinking we know. And perhaps a real pilot will chime in and set us strait.. ;)
grumpy
 

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Flyer5 On: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:19 pm

jpete wrote:
Lightning wrote:Yes good point... Big or small they all "work" the same way. A Cessna pilot could absolutely fly an airliner, maybe not very well hahaha but he could....


Full bore at treetop level? Maybe he "could" but my money is on "cart wheeling flaming wreck." :D



One of the first lessons given when starting flight training is point of reference on the windscreen. If the object is falling down the windscreen you will overfly it if the object is rising in the windscreen you will be short. If you keep the object stable you are on track. Its a pretty simple concept that works very well at pretty much any speed. I believe someone with even minimal flight experience up to solo can pull this off. They also had airliner sim training.
Flyer5
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Leisure Line WL110
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Leisure Line Pioneer

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Richard S. On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:01 am

jpete wrote:When I get a reasonable explanation as to why Flight 93 didn't appear as every other plane vs. earth accident and how a plane punches a perfectly round hole through 7 layers of granite and reinforced concrete, THEN I'll buy the "official story".

Until then, put me firmly in the "Suspicious" category.



<sigh> when something is traveling at 500 or 600 mph and hits an unmovable object such as the earth it disappears, it's gone, no more, nada.... As far as the pentagon goes the only perfectly round hole is where an engine went through an inner wall.

Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Richard S. On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:11 am

grumpy wrote: But from what I know the evidence points to it being shot down.


They were going to shoot it down, is there really any reason for them lie and say we we're going to shoot it down but it crashed before we could?


there is not one shred of evidence to support a 757 crash, there is however a ton to suggest it did not.


You have that ass backwards, the problem with these conspiracy theories whether it's 9/11 or any other one is they ignore the wide body of facts and hinge on minor inconsistencies that are usually inconsequential, misleading, conjecture or not even facts.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Lightning On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:16 am

samhill wrote:What, does a plane automatically slow down the lower it gets? :? Maybe the airbrakes weren't applied. :lol:


Actually, the bigger passenger airliners do have air brakes, sort of. There are big plates on the tops of the wings that raise up perpendicular to the on coming air. They are engaged immediately after touch down to help slow the plane down along with reverse thrust of the engines and hydraulic brakes on the landing gear wheels. The plates on the tops of the wings are called spoilers.
Lightning
 
Hand Fed Coal Furnace: Clayton 1537G
Coal Size/Type: Nut/Stove Size Mix

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: freetown fred On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:27 am

Hell, I thought they were called FLAPS--ex: flaps up---flaps down---up for flight---down for drag---Don't tell me John Wayne didn't know what he was talkin about in that movie??????????? :clap: toothy
freetown fred
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut/Stove mix

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:32 am

Richard S. wrote:<sigh> when something is traveling at 500 or 600 mph and hits an unmovable object such as the earth it disappears, it's gone, no more, nada.... As far as the pentagon goes the only perfectly round hole is where an engine went through an inner wall.


Every plane vs. earth crash in history says this isn't the case. The wreckage of Flight 93 was spread out of quite an area as I recall so that means it didn't impact the ground at a dead 90* angle as your F4 video.

Especially knowing what we know now in regards to the amount of spying on everyone the NSA et al are doing, I'm less likely to believe them when they say they had no idea what was going to happen.

If they knew within hours that OSB was the ring leader. If they knew what the reason was for Benghazi before the fire was out. If they know who used poison gas in Syria, then they knew what was coming on 9/11.

And if they didn't know all that, then they are BS artists and have no credibility about anything so why should I believe them when they tell me what happened on 9/11?
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: freetown fred On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 6:40 am

You shouldn't if you choose not to--ain't this democracy thing grande ;)
Last edited by freetown fred on Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
freetown fred
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: HITZER 50-93
Coal Size/Type: BLASCHAK Nut/Stove mix

Re: Flight 93

PostBy: Richard S. On: Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:05 am

jpete wrote:
Every plane vs. earth crash in history says this isn't the case.


I can't find it at the moment but I have seen one that was similar, I believe they lost flight controls and the plane nose dived like this one.

In any event let's assume for a second it was faked, so the question then becomes why? If this is some kind of conspiracy what is the purpose of concocting some overly complex scheme with multiple points of failure to fake it when you could for example take a real plane and just crash it on purpose?
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite