evidence of "no-planes"

I heard a radio commentator shortly after 9/11
explaining that he is a pilot and had his own airplane
and really rudder peddles are the same for small aircraft as for airliners
and control yoke is the same and ( etc... ) giving these similarities as
justification for having hijacker puddle-jumper pilots being able to fly
large commercial airliners on 9/11. May I make this one statement on
this subject, imagine that somehow by magic, your basic car became
an 18 wheeler, and you have to not only make precision maneuvers,
but do so at full throttle, can you think of this?

The air-pressure on control surfaces increases by the cube
of the velocity, and as such, control surfaces that were designed
to function well and lower speeds may not be operable at speed
considerably higher than VNE, this includes the distinct possibility
of breaking a control surface, thus making the aircraft uncontrollable.
now do you see?

 

Another bogus claim. Reality trumps BULSH. Flight 175 was descending...all the way to the towers. Not much control needed.

 

Given the "power-dive" scenario, this involves yet another feature
of pilot control, the aircraft would have to be aimed very skillfully because
in a power-dive, the aircraft will have specific timing that has to be accounted
for, a smaller lighter aircraft like an F4 "turns on a dime" compared to an airliner.
one would have to have a very good educated guess as to how the aircraft would
respond to control, go into the power-dive, and pull up too soon and fly over the
tower, pull up too late and end up crashing into a shorter building before getting
to the tower. The responds to control problem becomes compounded by attempting
to operate the aircraft @ > 100 mph over VNE. does anyone know for certain that
the controls will work at all at such speeds?

 

considering flight 175 came close to missing the tower it was aimed at,any truther excuse is weak.

 

Not so, the control surfaces have counter controls on the trailing edge of the control to make it easy to control. They actually do most of the work. The only problem would be flutter if it developed. Again, not knowing anything about aircraft is not a good starting point to argue.

 

It wasn't a power dive but a powered descent.

 

ok, "powered descent" exactly how did the hijacker know when to pull up?
its a critical item and getting it wrong means not making it to your target.
there is also this little matter of actually controlling the aircraft at >100 mph over VNE.
also, the air resistance goes up by the cube of the velocity, therefore can we
be sure there was sufficient energy available from this "powered descent" to
accelerate the aircraft to 590 mph?

 

We can be sure, because it happened.

He almost missed, had to bank hard..

 

Your question assumes it cannot be done. The video clearly shows it can, and it did. Your point is moot.

 

Which video? One of the 83 that were confiscated, or some other one? (video can lie, and be manipulated, too). There are seasoned pilots that say they couldn't do that maneuver, yet this failed Cessna pilot (one who scared the crap out of his instructors and who wouldn't fly with him) did it quite handily (supposedly).

 

All of the videos that show flight 175 crashing into the WTC. Unless you can explain how those were all faked....you have nothing.

 

I own much video of the day. I can't find any in the way of planes at the Pentagon though. So strange. (I had heard some 80 plus tapes were immediately confiscated but then, of course, showed 'nothing'). NY? I know that at least one building (WTC7) was taken down intentionally (with the aid of explosives) and so, there's a reasonable chance that the other two may have been 'aided', as well.

 

correction,you THINK building 7 was taken down intentionally.....You don't 'know' anything

 

Psst ... The topic is about the planes that crashed into the WTC. You're ranting about the wrong building.

 

the topic simply sez "no planes" ..... so "FLT77" is fair game.
and really, no airliners were hijacked on 9/11/2001

 

None whatsoever?

Wow, that's a startling revelation. What happened to the passengers of the airliners that weren't hijacked?

 

This is just a bit like noticing that $ is missing from the vault,
and so we know that a crime has been committed, but to
demand details at this stage of the game is asking too much.

 

Not at all. You notice money missing, the first question is: how much is missing?

 

Right, and whodoneit comes later, and indeed an answer to that question
comes significantly later, unless there is somekinda instant break-through
in the case.

 

So: what happened to the passengers? What became of the children on AA77?

 

The fact that you repeat a question that is NOT
going to get answered at this stage of the process, speaks volumes about
what you are up to.

Have a nice day

: )

 

Good luck getting anything from circular Bob

 

When the question is unanswerable, you expect me to some how
by magic come up with an answer? what?

 

So in your scenario you aren't even sure money is missing?

Bad analogy on your part, bob.

 

You have some astute observations there Bob.