United Airways 175

[Matt Phillips]

In a recent scientific experiment using a 767 simulator, Rob Tucker was able to hit one of the towers 2 out of 10 times. The other 8 times he hit them both.

Ref please.

At what speed? Is this person an expert? A novice?

[Matt Phillips]

Did any of these attempts make use of autopilot?

No. I don't believe so.

[Permalost]

So there's statistical anomalies in that statistical anomaly in 2001? Sounds like A Space Odyssey's nonverbal substory.

[Matt Phillips]

Here's one:
http://911blogger.com/node/20232

This would be compelling if they had demonstrated a velocity that actually did produce a simcrash. As it stands it is impossible to know if this was a fair test, as it is not stated whether the simulator had Crash Logic enabled or not.

[mike321]

Reference please.

There is no "professional pilot" way of making that maneuver at high speed. The professional pilots who tried this in simulator all attempted to make these kind of corrections and failed.

Not a citation; just my observation of the plane going into the tower. The plane banks in and then makes a sharp turn. I don't see anything that makes me think the plane had to hit the tower.

[Matt Phillips]

The conspiracy you keep hedging, and are now attempting to backpedal on?

I don't have to imagine; here are your quotes:

[/COLOR]


It's one thing to be generally skeptical, but another to claim that because you did some math and your pilot buddies said so, yadda yadda..."the official 9/11 report must be fake".

That's not "Evidence based reasoning" because you have no evidence. It's called "conspiracy theorizing".



IT does when you, Matt, keep using the term "at sea level" when 1,000 feet makes a 5% difference in the pressure of air above the plane, which certainly moves the redline for structural integrity at a given speed.



You can't compare these two situations. They are totally different. On EA990 for instance, there are indications you had multiple pilots fighting over control of the plane. So many different variables.



"Logic is logic"????

Your logic was FALSE, that is my point, because several of your "logical" statements, such as "a 767 going faster than X will disintegrate" have already been contradicted, and you've resorted to the logical fallacy of proof by assertion, that if enough 767 pilots say it can't ever be, then it can't ever be.

Ludicrously illogical.

What's ludicrous is this ridiculous wad of strawman here. I do not believe is any conspiracy theories as you claim; I never claimed "the official 9/11 report must be fake" as you claim; The difference between sea level and 1000 feet is not significant, as you claim it to be; nor have I ever said anything like "if enough 767 pilots say it can't ever be, then it can't ever be" or made a single argument resting on a large group of 767 pilots (or anyone else) saying anything.

[Rivington]

As it stands it is impossible to know if this was a fair test, as it is not stated whether the simulator had Crash Logic enabled or not.

Eh, there is just as much assumption in taking the material in the longer vid as the result of fair tests. Did the pilots who hit the towers get left on the cutting room floor? Nor is there a reason to slap your hands over your eyes. Bursill is easy enough to contact if you wish to ask him about his test: johnbursill@gmail.com He's also been over this in other places: As I have said it was an industry standard flight simulator used to test and train Australian Pilots and it is ludicrous to suggest that pulling circuit breakers for "aural warnings" disabled the "crash logic" of the simulator. Even if it was true, which I can prove it's not, it would not disable the performance profiles which come directly from Boeing test data that establish the speed possibilities!

The "impossible speed" issue is an intra-"truther" controversy, one that has been handled quite a while ago:

[It is Fake]

What's ludicrous is this ridiculous wad of strawman here. I do not believe is any conspiracy theories as you claim; I never claimed "the official 9/11 report must be fake" as you claim; The difference between sea level and 1000 feet is not significant, as you claim it to be; nor have I ever said anything like "if enough 767 pilots say it can't ever be, then it can't ever be" or made a single argument resting on a large group of 767 pilots (or anyone else) saying anything.

10 vs 100s and now sea level vs 1000 feet is not "significant."

You constantly throw around "I iz an sientieest" appeal, but it is weird how number fudging is okay. Wait, I apologize, number fudging is okay when YOU do it. If it is someone else, god forbid, your ass is trotting out proofs and calculations to call them wrong.














































LOL@YOU. Every time you accuse me of playing semantics, which is in my field, I secretly chuckle when I watch you do the same things in your field.

[battlefields]

Having ZERO experience in this field, I think I am most qualified to think outside the box, so I have a thought. These schools they trained at, with simulators, would they have offered free practice on these simulators? As in, they've obviously paid a fee to train there, so is it conceivable that they were able to use the equipment off the books? Or even if they were able to use the equipment on the books, what was the level of monitoring they experienced?

My thinking leads me to think that they might have trained for the specific purpose of hitting a target, which might not have raised many eyebrows, considering that I imagine that crashing a simulator is par for the course, an accepted learning curve. So while every other student is doing their best to fly right and land in the simulator, ol' Jihadi Al-Qaeda seems to be fucking up in very specific ways. An instructor might think, "damn, this guy SUCKS", give him a few extra hours to practice in the simulator, practicing how to crash in a precise manner, then, so as to not arouse suspicion, does some base level landing, etc and whammo, licence, knowledge and the potential ability to **** **** up.

Nothing scientific, but this is pre 911 days, when people wouldn't really have thought that Islami Fundamentalist dude crashing a plane over and over screaming "Allah Akbar" at a computer screen was all that much of a threat. They might've seen it as just frustration that he wasn't getting it.

[Matt Phillips]

Eh, there is just as much assumption in taking the material in the longer vid as the result of fair tests. Did the pilots who hit the towers get left on the cutting room floor?

Um... what? The test isn't shown. Have you watched it yet?

Nor is there a reason to slap your hands over your eyes. Bursill is easy enough to contact if you wish to ask him about his test: johnbursill@gmail.com

thanks. email sent.

He's also been over this in other places: As I have said it was an industry standard flight simulator used to test and train Australian Pilots and it is ludicrous to suggest that pulling circuit breakers for "aural warnings" disabled the "crash logic" of the simulator.

I never said anything like that; I never mentioned the "aural warnings" at all.

Even if it was true, which I can prove it's not,

Please do. I would rather be wrong about this.

it would not disable the performance profiles which come directly from Boeing test data that establish the speed possibilities!

If crash logic is off... IF... my understanding is that the sim won't crash the plane regardless of how fast you go.

The "impossible speed" issue is an intra-"truther" controversy, one that has been handled quite a while ago:

Watching now. Before I start I should add that the second (longer) video is an official product of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and, I assume, represents their official view on the subject of UA175's speed. It doesn't sound like it was intra-handled conclusively at all, since this view is in oppositions to others you have referenced inside the broader Truther community.