United Airways 175

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 8:05pm

Originally Posted by It is Fake

No, this is your new trope! Beneath me is engaging you in a **** contest of who can post the best rhetoric filled post; but it is fun! A scientist trying to claim minute variances and numbers DON'T MATTER is beneath you!

As you well know, unless you are a fraud, minute variances can be the difference between a plane disintegrating or people in this thread arguing with you over 1000 feet vs Sea level!

Go ahead and pretend it doesn't matter!

I already why I initially thought it was 10's of hours instead of 100's (multiple training locations). I acknowledged that mistake, and responded by listing every instance in the FBI summary of the two pilots whereabouts in which they received flight instruction.

Here's the original argument summarized:

Originally Posted by summary

A plane hit the south tower of the WTC on 9/11 at high speed

Numerous professional pilots failed to duplicate this feat in simulation

Their instructor was able to duplicate this feat after multiple attempts

The professional pilots had experience in the 1000's of hours

The instructor had experience in the 10,000's of hours

1000's of hours appears to be inadequate experience to accomplish the maneuver

al-Shehhi had experience in the 10's of hours

Conclusion: it is virtually impossible for al-Shehhi to have been the pilot that performed the maneuver.

And here is the revised argument

Originally Posted by revised

A plane hit the south tower of the WTC on 9/11 at high speed

Numerous professional pilots failed to duplicate this feat in simulation

Their instructor was able to duplicate this feat after multiple attempts

The professional pilots had experience in the 1000's of hours

The instructor had experience in the 10,000's of hours

1000's of hours appears to be inadequate experience to accomplish the maneuver

al-Shehhi had experience in the 100's of hours

Conclusion: it is virtually impossible for al-Shehhi to have been the pilot that performed the maneuver.

As for the 1000ft vs sea level:

(1) It's not 1000 ft, it's approx 700 at point of impact.
(2) The difference between 0 ft elevation and 1000 ft elevation amounts to less than two miles per hour.

So no, neither case makes any difference at all.

**Matt Phillips** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 8:19pm

I'm trying to have a conversation about the data available, and an argument that I made from it, not a conversation about me. Speculating about what I believe, what my motive is, why I make such posts or any other notion about me, my states of mind, or anything is not a conversation I'm interested in having. It's a subforum for general skepticism, and this material is not personal.

**Mr. Machette** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 8:27pm

Originally Posted by W. Rabbit

possibly even hitting the reverse thrusters before impact?

Reverse thrusters? WTF? 911 was now caused by golden age rocket technology?

I got one, maybe their tractor beam failed or perhaps the Dylithium Chrytals reached critical mass!

I believe you are reffering to "thrust reversers". Similar concept, very different machine...

**It is Fake** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 8:42pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

I'm trying to have a conversation about the data available, and an argument that I made from it, not a conversation about me.

Semantics? Really?

Speculating about what I believe, what my motive is, why I make such posts or any other notion about me, my states of mind, or anything is not a conversation I'm interested in having.

That happens when you take sides and then say you aren't taking sides!

It's a subforum for general skepticism, and this material is not personal.

No, but your writing and ours make it personal. If you want it to stop, you should stop passively belittling people. Yes, I know, I do it as well.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 9:11pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

Ref please.

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

This is absolutely the best post in the whole thread. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. lolololol.

Rob Tucker is a goddamn expert!! How dare you question Rob Tucker's experience.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 9:18pm

Originally Posted by battlefields

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?

No. They would charge by the hour and the time would be logged as simulator time in the pilot's logbook.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/29/2013 9:24pm

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

None of this is relevant because I haven't referenced any such statement from any instructors at all.

No dude. You're thinking this:

And I'm talking about this:

And we know exactly how many days training they had on such equipment: two.

And I wasn't quoting you when I made reference to the other pilot's opinions. Actually, it was the pilot statements from a link IIF posted earlier that got me thinking about that.

As far as the simulators, I know what I was thinking and what you were thinking. Obviously, the zillion dollar simulator is the way to go. But you can learn from the others as well. That's why they exist.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 1/30/2013 10:58am

Originally Posted by Mr. Machette

Reverse thrusters? WTF? 911 was now caused by golden age rocket technology?

I got one, maybe their tractor beam failed or perhaps the Dylithium Chrytals reached critical mass!

I believe you are reffering to "thrust reversers". Similar concept, very different machine...

Hmm no. I was referring to EA990 anyway, not 9/11. Fine, thrust reverser. Rocket nerd.

The official reports between NTSB and the Egyptian government conflict.There was (according to one side of the reporting) a cockpit struggle between flight officers, one of whom attempted to intentionally crash the plane (and succeeded). The black box suggested there was an intense struggle over the controls, which fit what happened to EA990 structurally as it fell from the sky.

This puts it in another league as someone intentionally opening the throttle and aiming the plane for a skyscraper and saying **** all to safe airspeed.

**W. Rabbit** · Posted On: 1/30/2013 11:40am

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips

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.

It would be more compelling if you had actually read it and without having to get technical at all, read the common sense point the author made:

within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.

That "within a few seconds" part is important because it kills the entire "impossible speed" theory with a little common sense.

What was the airspeed of Flight 175 5 second before impact? How about 10 seconds? How about 15s? This is also why there are numerous DIFFERENT airspeed reports other than 447 knots depending on who reviewed what videos. They are all approximations anyway.

Assuming the actual velocity/airspeed was 447 knots at all those times? Ludicrous number fudging! Connecting dots you penciled in at times t you have no data for!

You've forgotten the high probability that the pilot-hijackers were accelerating to an unsafe velocity in the moments before impact, which would far more easily explain why the plane was measured at an unsafe speed at the moment of impact than any theory involving a coverup or falsification (of which there is zero evidence).

Oh by the way, there is evidence in your OP video of such acceleration taking place in the last few seconds before impact, if you look closely.

Matt, your final thread grade is:
2/10

**PDA** · Posted On: 2/06/2013 6:17am

Originally Posted by Devil

Don't have time to watch the videos now so I only had a quick read through, and I am not a jet pilot. I have just a very small bit of flight experience (<100 hrs) in small planes. What jumped out at me though is the idea that the plane would be harder to maneuver at high speed. That seems weird. Typically a plane is more responsive at high speed because of the increased airflow over the control surfaces. Obviously, radical banking could cause a wing to come off at high speed, but it seems like making minor corrections to fly to a specific point would be easier. The slower you fly, the harder it is to maneuver. The controls get mushy and respond slowly because air is flowing over the wing slower. That's why landing is the hardest thing to learn. Just my quick observation.

Thats what I was thinking.

If you can hit a runway slowly why is it so hard to hit a building going fast?