Onesliceshort
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 85
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Can we please have a mature discussion on the content of this video?
-
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!
Skygate 911[W:39:279]
- Thread starter Onesliceshort
- Start date
Can we please have a mature discussion on the content of this video?
The General
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 48
- Location
- Not to your left
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
NO! 911 have been talk about to death and I am sick of heating about it, and the pilots were not flying. I doubt the terrorists knew or cared about this stuff.
I do not mean any disrespect to the victims or heroes of 911.
NO! 911 have been talk about to death and I am sick of heating about it, and the pilots were not flying. I doubt the terrorists knew or cared about this stuff.
I do not mean any disrespect to the victims or heroes of 911.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,448
- Location
- Moss Vale, NSW, AU
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
How can anyone discuss without knowing the purpose of the discussion?
What is the purpose of such a discussion?
How can anyone discuss without knowing the purpose of the discussion?
Onesliceshort
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 85
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
And the final seconds of the aircraft that struck the south tower:
Add to the aerodynamics involved the effect on controllability! Those test pilots were visibly shaken about. Now imagine trying to aim the damn thing with a margin of error 25ft either way!
Piece of piss, eh? :roll:
And the final seconds of the aircraft that struck the south tower:
Add to the aerodynamics involved the effect on controllability! Those test pilots were visibly shaken about. Now imagine trying to aim the damn thing with a margin of error 25ft either way!
Piece of piss, eh? :roll:
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,448
- Location
- Moss Vale, NSW, AU
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
You seem to have difficulty saying what you mean.
Let me help. --- I will accept that it would be difficult to hit a tower building with an A380 doing a flutter test. So what is your next point please?
BTW I wasn't even aware that the aircraft involved on 9/11 were A380s - they must have been early secret prototypes to be flying on 9/11 2001.
How do you P4T experts on aviation matters explain the apparent disguising of A380s to look like much smaller Boeings?
BTW What was your purpose in posting the VG diagram in the OP. The concepts of safe operating envelopes are common to many aspects of engineering - and not unique to aviation. Granted the aviation ones have to be simple enough for pilots to use. But practical useabilty is needed in other fields - it is not limited to aviation.
You seem to have difficulty saying what you mean.
Let me help. --- I will accept that it would be difficult to hit a tower building with an A380 doing a flutter test. So what is your next point please?
BTW I wasn't even aware that the aircraft involved on 9/11 were A380s - they must have been early secret prototypes to be flying on 9/11 2001.
How do you P4T experts on aviation matters explain the apparent disguising of A380s to look like much smaller Boeings?
BTW What was your purpose in posting the VG diagram in the OP. The concepts of safe operating envelopes are common to many aspects of engineering - and not unique to aviation. Granted the aviation ones have to be simple enough for pilots to use. But practical useabilty is needed in other fields - it is not limited to aviation.
Last edited:
Onesliceshort
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 85
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
I asked for a mature discussion and so far have had a childish "NO!", a fair question if the topic wasn't contained in the video in the OP, and a sarcastic response.
The A380 video was to show the effects when safety margins are surpassed in any aircraft type as opposed to the usual GL kack and bluster, waiving away the aerodynamic formula used to arrive at these limits.
SPEED - Scene from "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK" on Vimeo
And the effects on the pilots in the A380 cockpit at speeds far lower than than those recorded for the aircraft that struck the south tower.
Scene From: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Control on Vimeo
I asked for a mature discussion and so far have had a childish "NO!", a fair question if the topic wasn't contained in the video in the OP, and a sarcastic response.
The A380 video was to show the effects when safety margins are surpassed in any aircraft type as opposed to the usual GL kack and bluster, waiving away the aerodynamic formula used to arrive at these limits.
SPEED - Scene from "9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK" on Vimeo
And the effects on the pilots in the A380 cockpit at speeds far lower than than those recorded for the aircraft that struck the south tower.
Scene From: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Control on Vimeo
Thoreau72
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,638
- Reaction score
- 7,644
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
No, a rational and mature discussion about aerodynamics is not possible with people in deep denial about facts. The truth is simply too painful for some to contemplate, and they avoid such discussions.
No, a rational and mature discussion about aerodynamics is not possible with people in deep denial about facts. The truth is simply too painful for some to contemplate, and they avoid such discussions.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,448
- Location
- Moss Vale, NSW, AU
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
So you are back near your start point. At least you are now explicit that the Boeing struck the south tower. BUT why post the A380 example if it is not relevant?
You seem to be saying "An A380 couldn't have struck the tower at the lower speed in the flutter test BUT the Boeing did strike at a higher speed therefore the Boeing wasn't affected as much by flutter at the higher speed than the A380 was at lower speed." If that is what you are saying I have no difficulty comprehending the large variances that can occur between different types of aircraft and/or different flight regimes.
If that is not what you are saying why have you shown the video of the A380 tests in relationship to the aircraft which struck the tower?
AND What are YOU trying to say about the Boeing that struck the tower OTHER THAN "it struck the tower"?
You obviously are trying to say something - why not say it explicitly?
so far you have not said why you want discussion THEN you run away from a simple question and post two separate examples of facts which YOU fail to show any linkage between OR why YOU posted them. No sensible person should need to guess what you are trying to say - no matter what ambiguously worded sycophantic idiocies HD posts.
Good. Now you explain "show the effects when safety margins are explained." For an A380 - not a Boeing. I would expect similar but not identical phenomena with a Boeing - but clearly such phenomena did not prevent the Boeing hitting the Tower. So that is a further fact gleaned from your evidence.
Not relevant to anything I have posted.
So you acknowledge "the aircraft that struck the south tower" which confirms what I just posted. It means that the aircraft which struck the south tower was not prevented from doing so by factors resulting from speed or flutter of the type shown in the A380.
So you are back near your start point. At least you are now explicit that the Boeing struck the south tower. BUT why post the A380 example if it is not relevant?
You seem to be saying "An A380 couldn't have struck the tower at the lower speed in the flutter test BUT the Boeing did strike at a higher speed therefore the Boeing wasn't affected as much by flutter at the higher speed than the A380 was at lower speed." If that is what you are saying I have no difficulty comprehending the large variances that can occur between different types of aircraft and/or different flight regimes.
If that is not what you are saying why have you shown the video of the A380 tests in relationship to the aircraft which struck the tower?
AND What are YOU trying to say about the Boeing that struck the tower OTHER THAN "it struck the tower"?
You obviously are trying to say something - why not say it explicitly?
Onesliceshort
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 85
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Ozeco, stop being so hysterical.
The relevant sentence which you (knowingly) snipped so that you could go on your little rant is this
Boeing, like all aircraft manufacturers, follow the same safety margin protocols. The Boeing 777 video demonstrates this.
My point being that GLs, like yourself, are simply trolling when they ignore the issues outlined in the Pilotsfor911Truth videos linked to here.
Ozeco, stop being so hysterical.
The relevant sentence which you (knowingly) snipped so that you could go on your little rant is this
Boeing, like all aircraft manufacturers, follow the same safety margin protocols. The Boeing 777 video demonstrates this.
My point being that GLs, like yourself, are simply trolling when they ignore the issues outlined in the Pilotsfor911Truth videos linked to here.
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
ozeco, have you watched the above video? And if so, why would you state -
"Now you explain "show the effects when safety margins are explained." For an A380 - not a Boeing."
?
ozeco, have you watched the above video? And if so, why would you state -
"Now you explain "show the effects when safety margins are explained." For an A380 - not a Boeing."
?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 39,231
- Reaction score
- 22,597
- Location
- arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
The trailer for skygate911 found during a google search showed the crash of N130HP airtanker. This crash has little in common with what occurred on 911. It does show what can happen to older aircraft that are used in an extreme environment and are not routinely checked for stress cracks.
In the full length film does P4T explain the following :
“At the time of the accident, the airplane had a total of 20,289 flight hours, 19,547 of which were acquired during its military service.
“Frequent and aggressive low-level maneuvers with high acceleration loads and high
levels of atmospheric turbulence are an inherent part of firefighting operations. The aircraft had flown many missions over the years.”
“Because the maneuver loading, in both the repeated and high magnitude applications, is so severe relative to the design loads, shortening of the structural life of the aircraft should be expected.”
“The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the accident was the inflight failure of the right wing due to fatigue cracking in the underside right wing skin and overlying doubler. The Board determined that a factor contributing to the accident was inadequate maintenance procedures to detect fatigue cracking.
http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/NTSBairtanker.pdf
I have no disagreement if your point is aircraft can eventually fail when flown beyond specifications. If you failed to mention how long it took before the failure in N130HP, then are you not just using a tragic wildfire accident to sensationalize aircraft failures? Your trailer seems to leave the impression the failure will happen the very first time speciation are exceeded. That is not the case in the use of airtankers on wildfires
The trailer for skygate911 found during a google search showed the crash of N130HP airtanker. This crash has little in common with what occurred on 911. It does show what can happen to older aircraft that are used in an extreme environment and are not routinely checked for stress cracks.
In the full length film does P4T explain the following :
“At the time of the accident, the airplane had a total of 20,289 flight hours, 19,547 of which were acquired during its military service.
“Frequent and aggressive low-level maneuvers with high acceleration loads and high
levels of atmospheric turbulence are an inherent part of firefighting operations. The aircraft had flown many missions over the years.”
“Because the maneuver loading, in both the repeated and high magnitude applications, is so severe relative to the design loads, shortening of the structural life of the aircraft should be expected.”
“The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the accident was the inflight failure of the right wing due to fatigue cracking in the underside right wing skin and overlying doubler. The Board determined that a factor contributing to the accident was inadequate maintenance procedures to detect fatigue cracking.
http://www.govexec.com/pdfs/NTSBairtanker.pdf
I have no disagreement if your point is aircraft can eventually fail when flown beyond specifications. If you failed to mention how long it took before the failure in N130HP, then are you not just using a tragic wildfire accident to sensationalize aircraft failures? Your trailer seems to leave the impression the failure will happen the very first time speciation are exceeded. That is not the case in the use of airtankers on wildfires
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Once again Mike fails to post source to support his claims.
Was the aircraft flying at 510 knots? Was it flying above the aircraft Vmo? Flying more than the aircraft Va?
Have you compared the cycles of Egypt Air 990 (a verified standard 767 which has been positively identified) to "UA175" (a claimed 767 which has been refused to be positively identified)?
ozeco brought up this argument before regarding cycles. But dropped it quick when he learned Egypt Air 990 suffered structural failure nearly 85 knots lower than "Ua175", and found that Egypt Air 990 had much fewer cycles.
Have you watched the video in the OP mike? Or did you just search for the trailer. You should post the trailer here to back up your claims!
Once again Mike fails to post source to support his claims.
Was the aircraft flying at 510 knots? Was it flying above the aircraft Vmo? Flying more than the aircraft Va?
Have you compared the cycles of Egypt Air 990 (a verified standard 767 which has been positively identified) to "UA175" (a claimed 767 which has been refused to be positively identified)?
ozeco brought up this argument before regarding cycles. But dropped it quick when he learned Egypt Air 990 suffered structural failure nearly 85 knots lower than "Ua175", and found that Egypt Air 990 had much fewer cycles.
Have you watched the video in the OP mike? Or did you just search for the trailer. You should post the trailer here to back up your claims!
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 39,231
- Reaction score
- 22,597
- Location
- arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Happy now. It is towards the end of the clip. (approx. 1:30 mark)
.
The timing is great. Promoting Christmas sells are you?
My quote from the post. "I have no disagreement if your point is aircraft can eventually fail when flown beyond specifications"
So why did you include the airtanker crash.?
It has nothing to do with 911.
Where is all the follow up documentation to the OP clip? Why do you demand I present items that you do not require the OP to do?
I know, It is becuase he is one of the "faithfull"
Once again Mike fails to post source to support his claims.
Was the aircraft flying at 510 knots? Was it flying above the aircraft Vmo? Flying more than the aircraft Va?
Have you compared the cycles of Egypt Air 990 (a verified standard 767 which has been positively identified) to "UA175" (a claimed 767 which has been refused to be positively identified)?
ozeco brought up this argument before regarding cycles. But dropped it quick when he learned Egypt Air 990 suffered structural failure nearly 85 knots lower than "Ua175", and found that Egypt Air 990 had much fewer cycles.
Have you watched the video in the OP mike? Or did you just search for the trailer. You should post the trailer here to back up your claims!
Happy now. It is towards the end of the clip. (approx. 1:30 mark)
.
The timing is great. Promoting Christmas sells are you?
My quote from the post. "I have no disagreement if your point is aircraft can eventually fail when flown beyond specifications"
So why did you include the airtanker crash.?
It has nothing to do with 911.
Where is all the follow up documentation to the OP clip? Why do you demand I present items that you do not require the OP to do?
I know, It is becuase he is one of the "faithfull"
Last edited:
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Sorry Mike. It's not working for me.
Are you unable to embed the video as OSS has done for many of his sources?
What do you mean? You're the one who made claims about the trailer, now you refuse to source it? Are you promoting for P4T?
Clearly aircraft can fail below their limitations as well? Have you watched the video in the OP? A great example is given.
First you must prove the airtanker crash was included. Again, are you unable to embed video on this forum?
Sorry Mike. It's not working for me.
Are you unable to embed the video as OSS has done for many of his sources?
What do you mean? You're the one who made claims about the trailer, now you refuse to source it? Are you promoting for P4T?
Clearly aircraft can fail below their limitations as well? Have you watched the video in the OP? A great example is given.
First you must prove the airtanker crash was included. Again, are you unable to embed video on this forum?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 39,231
- Reaction score
- 22,597
- Location
- arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
1:30 mark. about
Guess we have to do all of your work for you.
Are you saying you did not include an airtanker crash in your vid? If you didn't then if I were you I would demand the person behind the vid to remove it.
The reason I posted it was to demonstrate you are great at mixing apples and oranges to try and make a point.
Have a good one.
1:30 mark. about
Guess we have to do all of your work for you.
Are you saying you did not include an airtanker crash in your vid? If you didn't then if I were you I would demand the person behind the vid to remove it.
The reason I posted it was to demonstrate you are great at mixing apples and oranges to try and make a point.
Have a good one.
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Thanks Mike.. .that's much better.
Umm.. to answer your question... i think the reason for the airtanker is to demonstrate aircraft can suffer structural damage below Va, Vmo, and Vd.
Have you watched the video in the OP?
Third time asked...
Thanks Mike.. .that's much better.
Umm.. to answer your question... i think the reason for the airtanker is to demonstrate aircraft can suffer structural damage below Va, Vmo, and Vd.
Have you watched the video in the OP?
Third time asked...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 39,231
- Reaction score
- 22,597
- Location
- arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Yes, I have.
Did you look at the investignation report for the tanker?
What did it say about typical wildland tanker flight? What did is say about the number of hours on the aircraft? What did is say about the stress cracks that were undetected that resulted in airframe failure?
One of the reasons the airtanker fleet in the US has been reduced is because of the age of the aircraft and the cracking issue.
Even by your reply, the reader could think that the tankers wings would fall off everytime they make a drop.
My point stands. It is a terrible comparision. It shows you like to take partial facts and spin them.
Yes, I have.
Did you look at the investignation report for the tanker?
What did it say about typical wildland tanker flight? What did is say about the number of hours on the aircraft? What did is say about the stress cracks that were undetected that resulted in airframe failure?
One of the reasons the airtanker fleet in the US has been reduced is because of the age of the aircraft and the cracking issue.
Even by your reply, the reader could think that the tankers wings would fall off everytime they make a drop.
My point stands. It is a terrible comparision. It shows you like to take partial facts and spin them.
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
I have
Just what you said?
Not if they watch the video in the OP.
Your opinion noted.
eace
I have
Just what you said?
Not if they watch the video in the OP.
Your opinion noted.
eace
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
hmmmm....
hmmmm....
Thoreau72
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 29,638
- Reaction score
- 7,644
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
I am not certain, but I think that number was derived from radar data.
Personally, I don't consider the radar data to be necessarily accurate, as we know the radar system was spoofed that day.
I am not certain, but I think that number was derived from radar data.
Personally, I don't consider the radar data to be necessarily accurate, as we know the radar system was spoofed that day.
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
The source is the NTSB. The NTSB document is in the video itself. I'd link the document here for you, but you don't trust "Conspiracy blogs".
So, go google.
Or... try here... http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.aspx
Good luck!
Edit to add:
If anyone else would like the document from the NTSB, feel free to PM me for the link.
The source is the NTSB. The NTSB document is in the video itself. I'd link the document here for you, but you don't trust "Conspiracy blogs".
So, go google.
Or... try here... http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.aspx
Good luck!
Edit to add:
If anyone else would like the document from the NTSB, feel free to PM me for the link.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,648
- Reaction score
- 53,352
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Thought so. You can only link a document "from the NTSB" that you've had time to edit.
Thought so. You can only link a document "from the NTSB" that you've had time to edit.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,648
- Reaction score
- 53,352
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
Wait, how do we know that? I was up that day and none of the controllers reported irregularities.
Wait, how do we know that? I was up that day and none of the controllers reported irregularities.
PilotsForTruth
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2013
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 193
- Location
- Very near LGA, JFK and HPN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
re: Skygate 911[W:39]
You are more than welcome to pick up your own directly from the NTSB via FOIA in the link I provided for you on the NTSB website.
Here it is again...
http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.aspx
You really think Pilots For 9/11 Truth and all the other sources on the net edited the NTSB Radar Data Speed Study in the same exact way? Including 9/11 Myths.. .a "debunker" site?
And you call us "Conspiracy theorists"????
:lamo
You are more than welcome to pick up your own directly from the NTSB via FOIA in the link I provided for you on the NTSB website.
Here it is again...
http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.aspx
You really think Pilots For 9/11 Truth and all the other sources on the net edited the NTSB Radar Data Speed Study in the same exact way? Including 9/11 Myths.. .a "debunker" site?
And you call us "Conspiracy theorists"????
:lamo