- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,607
- Reaction score
- 531
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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?
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
"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?"
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
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.
They have thin, light aluminum frames. They're not that durable. The airframe is also largely aluminum. You can destroy aluminum with a campfire.
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
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.
If it turned out that you were a high time 757 pilot it would change nothing at all for me.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?