You Can't Fly A 757 Like That!

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 02:51 PM

I know we've well and truely debunked this claim, but it's always fun to add some more nails to the coffin...

For all those who make claims about the impossibility of maneouvering AA77 the way Hanjour did... these should do the trick:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

-Gumboot

apathoid · 5th March 2007, 03:04 PM

God, look at the climbout in the second video

The 757 is positively the most overpowered airliner ever built. You could lose an engine at max weight and still have a better power to weight ratio than a 727 with all 3 turning!

Great vids Gumboot

Dragon · 5th March 2007, 03:09 PM

The OP reminded me of this film of a 707 rolling by a test pilot (a chandelle actually - which is only 1g - but impressive)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 03:11 PM

Oh by the way, both of those vids are courtesy of the Royal New Zealand Air Force...

-Gumboot

Arus808 · 5th March 2007, 03:16 PM

wow.

did you notice how noisy that was?

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Arus808

wow.

did you notice how noisy that was?

It would be quite interesting to re-check eyewitness testimony from The Pentagon... that 757 engine noise is very distinct...

(Our RNZAF 757's use the same engines AA77 had).

-Gumboot

Arus808 · 5th March 2007, 03:20 PM

does anyone care to post this or give Russ the ammunition to use against lytebrite and merc about their so called witnesses "hearing" that day?

Horatius · 5th March 2007, 03:23 PM

Any idea how fast those flybys were?

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Any idea how fast those flybys were?

Hmm... I might do some asing, see if I can find out...

-Gumboot

mailman · 5th March 2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Oh by the way, both of those vids are courtesy of the Royal New Zealand Air Force...

-Gumboot

That is also our entire airforce!

Im going to be at Avalon in a couple weeks (over in Melbourne, Australia) so hopefully this puppy will be there putting on its display.

Regards

Mailman

Totovader · 5th March 2007, 04:08 PM

Slightly OT- but here's another example of what a passenger jet "can't do" (which really just mean that the layman rarely sees it happen).

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVV3SNCvXEs

Due to the fact that there is such a strong crosswind when these planes are attempting to land, the pilot has to "lean into" the wind in order to compensate- so as to not be blown off the runway. Passenger aircraft have landing gear that can angle significantly to perform this maneuver so that when the plane touches down, the landing gear are pointing forward and will right the plane on the centerline of the runway.

An odd looking event, but not something that's impossible or unheard of.

Arus808 · 5th March 2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Totovader

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVV3SNCvXEs

Due to the fact that there is such a strong crosswind when these planes are attempting to land, the pilot has to "lean into" the wind in order to compensate- so as to not be blown off the runway. Passenger aircraft have landing gear that can angle significantly to perform this maneuver so that when the plane touches down, the landing gear are pointing forward and will right the plane on the centerline of the runway.

An odd looking event, but not something that's impossible or unheard of.

damn that was just strange to watch.

I seen a car going 80 mph on the freeway doing something like that.. but that was due to REALLY bad alignment. how he kept that little Toyota tercel going...is beyond me.

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Totovader

Slightly OT- but here's another example of what a passenger jet "can't do" (which really just mean that the layman rarely sees it happen).

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

But then, if people think it rarely happens, they have obviously never been to Wellington

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Note most of the aircraft are Air NZ; when it's rough the international pilots usually chicken out and divert to Palmerston North or Christchurch.

-Gumboot

Arus808 · 5th March 2007, 04:21 PM

man, i can't imagine being a passenger in one of those planes. FORGET Cedar point and its rollercoasters!

Totovader · 5th March 2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

But then, if people think it rarely happens, they have obviously never been to Wellington

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Note most of the aircraft are Air NZ; when it's rough the international pilots usually chicken out and divert to Palmerston North or Christchurch.

-Gumboot

Good finds- I've heard that Hong Kong is really bad for crosswind, too. In the 2nd video- the plane that lands on the front gear first- oh man, I was wincing. That, and the last plane- that was a rough bounce.

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Totovader

Good finds- I've heard that Hong Kong is really bad for crosswind, too. In the 2nd video- the plane that lands on the front gear first- oh man, I was wincing. That, and the last plane- that was a rough bounce.

Yeah that nasty one where the guy just got a down draft just before touch down and it pushed his nose in. Yowie...

Entertaining place to sit on a windy day and watch them come in...

-Gumboot

Horatius · 5th March 2007, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Arus808

man, i can't imagine being a passenger in one of those planes. FORGET Cedar point and its rollercoasters!

Picture that in a blizzard, and that's what the landing was like when I flew into St. John's, Newfoundland for my brother's wedding.

Mancman · 5th March 2007, 04:59 PM

Bad crosswinds during recent storms in Europe:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Were I on that plane, I would immediately require new underwear.

Arus808 · 5th March 2007, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Mancman

Bad crosswinds during recent storms in Europe:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Were I on that plane, I would immediately require new underwear.

some of the scenes in that looks like a nice spring/winter day on the Pali Look-Out

peteweaver · 5th March 2007, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by apathoid

God, look at the climbout in the second video

The 757 is positively the most overpowered airliner ever built. You could lose an engine at max weight and still have a better power to weight ratio than a 727 with all 3 turning!

Great vids Gumboot

It would be even more powerful if it had Rolls Royce Trent engines instead of the RB211's.

The RB211-535e produces 40,100lbf

The Trent 900 used on the A380 can produce 76,000 lbf of thrust!

Just for comparison, the Rolls Royce / Snecma Olympus series engines used on the Super Sonic Transport (Concorde) produced approximately 30,610 lbf of thrust and that is with afterburners.

The 757 is fly by wire, the flying conditions that day were perfect, and with power like that, damaging the pentagon would have been a doddle.

jhunter1163 · 5th March 2007, 06:00 PM

I always thought the "you can't fly a plane like that" argument was pretty weak. I used to live in the Seattle area and the Boeing employees there (and they were legion) used to tell stories about test pilots doing barrel rolls in 757's. I don't know if that's true, but given the video of the 707 doing one, I wouldn't be surprised.

ETA:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...stpilot30.html

In this news story, they say that modern test pilots turn the big planes upside down "accidentally". Suuuuure it's an accident.

Brainster · 5th March 2007, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

I always thought the "you can't fly a plane like that" argument was pretty weak. I used to live in the Seattle area and the Boeing employees there (and they were legion) used to tell stories about test pilots doing barrel rolls in 757's. I don't know if that's true, but given the video of the 707 doing one, I wouldn't be surprised.

This is a clear case of the Deniers mixing "can't" physically with "should not". Pilots of course should not do barrel rolls with passenger planes for the simple reason that it almost guarantees severe injury to the passengers and crew.

JimBenArm · 5th March 2007, 06:20 PM

Every time I see the OP for this, I hear some redneck going "Oh yeah? Hold muh beer! Watch this!"

jhunter1163 · 5th March 2007, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

This is a clear case of the Deniers mixing "can't" physically with "should not". Pilots of course should not do barrel rolls with passenger planes for the simple reason that it almost guarantees severe injury to the passengers and crew.

I would think that you COULD do a barrel roll with pretty much any plane, all the way up to a 747, given sufficient speed. You SHOULDN'T, but you COULD.

Or is this one of those counter-intuitive things?

Alt+F4 · 5th March 2007, 06:26 PM

Very intresting videos, thanks for posting them. The conspiracy liars would reply with, "Well only an experienced pilot could do those manuvers, not someone like Hani Hanjour."

My theory, and it's only a theory, is that Hani Hanjour was indeed a horrible pilot and that it was a pure accident that he hit The Pentagon. I think the target building for AA77 was either The Capital Building or The White House. Hanjour missed and instead hit The Pentagon. He could have as easily hit The Bureau of Printing and Engraving.

Why do I think this? For those you not familiar with the layout of Washington DC, look at a Google Earth map of the area. How long does it take you to find the The Capital Building, The White House and The Pentagon? I bet it takes much, much longer to find The Pentagon. Now imagine Hani Hanjour doing the same thing. The Pentagon was a too difficult target.

Of course since everyone on the flight died we will never no for sure what AA77's target was, but there is no conclusive evidence it was The Pentagon.

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

My theory, and it's only a theory, is that Hani Hanjour was indeed a horrible pilot and that it was a pure accident that he hit The Pentagon. I think the target building for AA77 was either The Capital Building or The White House. Hanjour missed and instead hit The Pentagon. He could have as easily hit The Bureau of Printing and Engraving.

Why do I think this? For those you not familiar with the layout of Washington DC, look at a Google Earth map of the area. How long does it take you to find the The Capital Building, The White House and The Pentagon? I bet it takes much, much longer to find The Pentagon. Now imagine Hani Hanjour doing the same thing. The Pentagon was a too difficult target.

Of course since everyone on the flight died we will never no for sure what AA77's target was, but there is no conclusive evidence it was The Pentagon.

The selection of targets by Al Qaeda is actually pretty well documented.

KSM chose two and OBL chose two. I believe OBL wanted to hit The Pentagon and the White House, however it was concluded that the White House would be far too difficult to hit, being rather small and low to the ground. So instead it was chosen that the targets would be the Capitol and The Pentagon. The Pentagon would actually be exceedingly easy to locate. Not only is it the largest office building in the world, but well, it's in the shape of a giant frikken pentagon!

KSM chose the two towers as his preferred targets.

Furthermore, we know that AA77's target was The Pentagon and UA93's target was the Capitol Building.

-Gumboot

Alt+F4 · 5th March 2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Furthermore, we know that AA77's target was The Pentagon and UA93's target was the Capitol Building.

Was this in the 9/11 Commission Report?

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Was this in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Dunno. Probably not. I think it was info they got from captured Al Qaeda members like KSM.

-Gumboot

A-Train · 5th March 2007, 07:10 PM

There is no question a 757 is capable of the maneuver made at the Pentagon. And there is no question AAL77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

The real question is, who-- or what-- was flying AAL77 when it hit the Pentagon.

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by A-Train

There is no question a 757 is capable of the maneuver made at the Pentagon. And there is no question AAL77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

The real question is, who-- or what-- was flying AAL77 when it hit the Pentagon.

Space Monkeys.

-Gumboot

JimBenArm · 5th March 2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Space Monkeys.

-Gumboot

No, surrender monkeys!

Unfit4Command · 5th March 2007, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

I know we've well and truely debunked this claim, but it's always fun to add some more nails to the coffin...

For all those who make claims about the impossibility of maneouvering AA77 the way Hanjour did... these should do the trick:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

-Gumboot

The second video is terrifying, I had no idea passenger jets were capable of climbs like that. Was that second plane tweeked in any way prior to that? damn...

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Unfit4Command

The second video is terrifying, I had no idea passenger jets were capable of climbs like that. Was that second plane tweeked in any way prior to that? damn...

Nope just a regular Boeing 757-200 powered by two Rolls Royce RB211535E4/4B turbofans.

-Gumboot

Unfit4Command · 5th March 2007, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Nope just a regular Boeing 757-200 powered by two Rolls Royce RB211535E4/4B turbofans.

-Gumboot

That's an amazing aircraft. I kind of want to be on one that does that, and kind of don't...

gumboot · 5th March 2007, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Unfit4Command

That's an amazing aircraft. I kind of want to be on one that does that, and kind of don't...

Our airforce used to operate the Hawker Siddeley Andover which was a STOL aircraft with the second largest prop blades of any aeroplane in the world.

Taking off in one of them in STOL format is a pretty weird feeling. It actually takes off so steeply that the wings are completely stalled. The props become like helicopter rotors and just pull the aircraft into the air.

-Gumboot

JamesB · 5th March 2007, 08:04 PM

Watching those I can easily see how all those witnesses at the Pentagon could have mistaken a 20 ft long cruise missile, or a propeller driven Predator UAV for a 757. /end sarc

God bless the Boeing company!!!

JamesB
Seattle, WA

JimBenArm · 5th March 2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by JamesB

Watching those I can easily see how all those witnesses at the Pentagon could have mistaken a 20 ft long cruise missile, or a propeller driven Predator UAV for a 757. /end sarc

God bless the Boeing company!!!

JamesB
Seattle, WA

I drive by a railroad yard every day on my way to work. Occasionally, there are 737 bodies on cars, on their way to Wichita for assembly. Way smaller than a 757 or 767. Yeah, I could see how you could mistake that for a missle (not!). I've seen a few missles up close & personal, and to think you could mistake something that small for something as large as a commercial aircraft, even a small commercial jet, is absurd!

boloboffin · 5th March 2007, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

The selection of targets by Al Qaeda is actually pretty well documented.

KSM chose two and OBL chose two. I believe OBL wanted to hit The Pentagon and the White House, however it was concluded that the White House would be far too difficult to hit, being rather small and low to the ground. So instead it was chosen that the targets would be the Capitol and The Pentagon. The Pentagon would actually be exceedingly easy to locate. Not only is it the largest office building in the world, but well, it's in the shape of a giant frikken pentagon!

KSM chose the two towers as his preferred targets.

Furthermore, we know that AA77's target was The Pentagon and UA93's target was the Capitol Building.

-Gumboot

And using the example of New York, the cameras in Washington would have been out in force expecting the second attack. And worldwide we would have seen live footage of United 93 screaming down the Mall and taking out the Rotunda.

That was what the passengers of United 93 stopped from happening. You wish people would leave the word "diabolical" alone so that it could be properly employed to things like this.

gumboot · 6th March 2007, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Any idea how fast those flybys were?

350kt (402MPH) 100ft, pulling up to 45^o of climbout to 7500ft.

That's straight from the horse's mouth... WGCDR Davies, 757 display pilot and former CO 40 SQN, RNZAF.

-Gumboot

mailman · 6th March 2007, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by gumboot

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Note most of the aircraft are Air NZ; when it's rough the international pilots usually chicken out and divert to Palmerston North or Christchurch.

-Gumboot

There is a great video of a RNZAF 727 landing in Wellington where it almost ends up planing one of the wings in to the ground because crosswind gusts!

Unfortunately I havent been able to find it!

Mailman

5th March 2007, 03:04 PM	#2
apathoid Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,918	God, look at the climbout in the second video The 757 is positively the most overpowered airliner ever built. You could lose an engine at max weight and still have a better power to weight ratio than a 727 with all 3 turning! Great vids Gumboot
apathoid Guest Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,918

5th March 2007, 03:11 PM	#4
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Oh by the way, both of those vids are courtesy of the Royal New Zealand Air Force... -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 03:16 PM	#5
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	wow. did you notice how noisy that was?
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

5th March 2007, 03:18 PM	#6
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Arus808 wow. did you notice how noisy that was? It would be quite interesting to re-check eyewitness testimony from The Pentagon... that 757 engine noise is very distinct... (Our RNZAF 757's use the same engines AA77 had). -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 03:20 PM	#7
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	does anyone care to post this or give Russ the ammunition to use against lytebrite and merc about their so called witnesses "hearing" that day?
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

5th March 2007, 03:23 PM	#8
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,537	Any idea how fast those flybys were?
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

5th March 2007, 03:28 PM	#9
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Horatius Any idea how fast those flybys were? Hmm... I might do some asing, see if I can find out... -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 03:39 PM	#10
mailman Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 341	Originally Posted by gumboot Oh by the way, both of those vids are courtesy of the Royal New Zealand Air Force... -Gumboot That is also our entire airforce! Im going to be at Avalon in a couple weeks (over in Melbourne, Australia) so hopefully this puppy will be there putting on its display. Regards Mailman
mailman Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 341

5th March 2007, 04:11 PM	#12
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	Originally Posted by Totovader http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVV3SNCvXEs Due to the fact that there is such a strong crosswind when these planes are attempting to land, the pilot has to "lean into" the wind in order to compensate- so as to not be blown off the runway. Passenger aircraft have landing gear that can angle significantly to perform this maneuver so that when the plane touches down, the landing gear are pointing forward and will right the plane on the centerline of the runway. An odd looking event, but not something that's impossible or unheard of. damn that was just strange to watch. I seen a car going 80 mph on the freeway doing something like that.. but that was due to REALLY bad alignment. how he kept that little Toyota tercel going...is beyond me.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

5th March 2007, 04:21 PM	#14
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	man, i can't imagine being a passenger in one of those planes. FORGET Cedar point and its rollercoasters!
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

5th March 2007, 04:31 PM	#16
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Totovader Good finds- I've heard that Hong Kong is really bad for crosswind, too. In the 2nd video- the plane that lands on the front gear first- oh man, I was wincing. That, and the last plane- that was a rough bounce. Yeah that nasty one where the guy just got a down draft just before touch down and it pushed his nose in. Yowie... Entertaining place to sit on a windy day and watch them come in... -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 04:41 PM	#17
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,537	Originally Posted by Arus808 man, i can't imagine being a passenger in one of those planes. FORGET Cedar point and its rollercoasters! Picture that in a blizzard, and that's what the landing was like when I flew into St. John's, Newfoundland for my brother's wedding.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

5th March 2007, 05:42 PM	#20
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 1,006	Originally Posted by apathoid God, look at the climbout in the second video The 757 is positively the most overpowered airliner ever built. You could lose an engine at max weight and still have a better power to weight ratio than a 727 with all 3 turning! Great vids Gumboot It would be even more powerful if it had Rolls Royce Trent engines instead of the RB211's. The RB211-535e produces 40,100lbf The Trent 900 used on the A380 can produce 76,000 lbf of thrust! Just for comparison, the Rolls Royce / Snecma Olympus series engines used on the Super Sonic Transport (Concorde) produced approximately 30,610 lbf of thrust and that is with afterburners. The 757 is fly by wire, the flying conditions that day were perfect, and with power like that, damaging the pentagon would have been a doddle.

5th March 2007, 06:00 PM	#21
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,455	I always thought the "you can't fly a plane like that" argument was pretty weak. I used to live in the Seattle area and the Boeing employees there (and they were legion) used to tell stories about test pilots doing barrel rolls in 757's. I don't know if that's true, but given the video of the 707 doing one, I wouldn't be surprised. ETA: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...stpilot30.html In this news story, they say that modern test pilots turn the big planes upside down "accidentally". Suuuuure it's an accident.
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister Last edited by jhunter1163; 5th March 2007 at 06:07 PM.

5th March 2007, 06:18 PM	#22
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 18,726	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 I always thought the "you can't fly a plane like that" argument was pretty weak. I used to live in the Seattle area and the Boeing employees there (and they were legion) used to tell stories about test pilots doing barrel rolls in 757's. I don't know if that's true, but given the video of the 707 doing one, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a clear case of the Deniers mixing "can't" physically with "should not". Pilots of course should not do barrel rolls with passenger planes for the simple reason that it almost guarantees severe injury to the passengers and crew.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

5th March 2007, 06:20 PM	#23
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 13,092	Every time I see the OP for this, I hear some redneck going "Oh yeah? Hold muh beer! Watch this!"
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

5th March 2007, 06:25 PM	#24
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,455	Originally Posted by Brainster This is a clear case of the Deniers mixing "can't" physically with "should not". Pilots of course should not do barrel rolls with passenger planes for the simple reason that it almost guarantees severe injury to the passengers and crew. I would think that you COULD do a barrel roll with pretty much any plane, all the way up to a 747, given sufficient speed. You SHOULDN'T, but you COULD. Or is this one of those counter-intuitive things?
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

5th March 2007, 06:26 PM	#25
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,017	Very intresting videos, thanks for posting them. The conspiracy liars would reply with, "Well only an experienced pilot could do those manuvers, not someone like Hani Hanjour." My theory, and it's only a theory, is that Hani Hanjour was indeed a horrible pilot and that it was a pure accident that he hit The Pentagon. I think the target building for AA77 was either The Capital Building or The White House. Hanjour missed and instead hit The Pentagon. He could have as easily hit The Bureau of Printing and Engraving. Why do I think this? For those you not familiar with the layout of Washington DC, look at a Google Earth map of the area. How long does it take you to find the The Capital Building, The White House and The Pentagon? I bet it takes much, much longer to find The Pentagon. Now imagine Hani Hanjour doing the same thing. The Pentagon was a too difficult target. Of course since everyone on the flight died we will never no for sure what AA77's target was, but there is no conclusive evidence it was The Pentagon.
	Last edited by Alt+F4; 5th March 2007 at 06:28 PM. Reason: typo

5th March 2007, 06:37 PM	#26
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 My theory, and it's only a theory, is that Hani Hanjour was indeed a horrible pilot and that it was a pure accident that he hit The Pentagon. I think the target building for AA77 was either The Capital Building or The White House. Hanjour missed and instead hit The Pentagon. He could have as easily hit The Bureau of Printing and Engraving. Why do I think this? For those you not familiar with the layout of Washington DC, look at a Google Earth map of the area. How long does it take you to find the The Capital Building, The White House and The Pentagon? I bet it takes much, much longer to find The Pentagon. Now imagine Hani Hanjour doing the same thing. The Pentagon was a too difficult target. Of course since everyone on the flight died we will never no for sure what AA77's target was, but there is no conclusive evidence it was The Pentagon. The selection of targets by Al Qaeda is actually pretty well documented. KSM chose two and OBL chose two. I believe OBL wanted to hit The Pentagon and the White House, however it was concluded that the White House would be far too difficult to hit, being rather small and low to the ground. So instead it was chosen that the targets would be the Capitol and The Pentagon. The Pentagon would actually be exceedingly easy to locate. Not only is it the largest office building in the world, but well, it's in the shape of a giant frikken pentagon! KSM chose the two towers as his preferred targets. Furthermore, we know that AA77's target was The Pentagon and UA93's target was the Capitol Building. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 06:43 PM	#27
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,017	Originally Posted by gumboot Furthermore, we know that AA77's target was The Pentagon and UA93's target was the Capitol Building. Was this in the 9/11 Commission Report?

5th March 2007, 06:53 PM	#28
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 Was this in the 9/11 Commission Report? Dunno. Probably not. I think it was info they got from captured Al Qaeda members like KSM. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 07:10 PM	#29
A-Train Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 432	There is no question a 757 is capable of the maneuver made at the Pentagon. And there is no question AAL77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. The real question is, who-- or what-- was flying AAL77 when it hit the Pentagon.
A-Train Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 432

5th March 2007, 07:11 PM	#30
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by A-Train There is no question a 757 is capable of the maneuver made at the Pentagon. And there is no question AAL77 did indeed hit the Pentagon. The real question is, who-- or what-- was flying AAL77 when it hit the Pentagon. Space Monkeys. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 07:20 PM	#31
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 13,092	Originally Posted by gumboot Space Monkeys. -Gumboot No, surrender monkeys!
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

5th March 2007, 07:55 PM	#33
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Unfit4Command The second video is terrifying, I had no idea passenger jets were capable of climbs like that. Was that second plane tweeked in any way prior to that? damn... Nope just a regular Boeing 757-200 powered by two Rolls Royce RB211535E4/4B turbofans. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 07:56 PM	#34
Unfit4Command Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 730	Originally Posted by gumboot Nope just a regular Boeing 757-200 powered by two Rolls Royce RB211535E4/4B turbofans. -Gumboot That's an amazing aircraft. I kind of want to be on one that does that, and kind of don't...
Unfit4Command Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 730	__________________

5th March 2007, 08:00 PM	#35
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Unfit4Command That's an amazing aircraft. I kind of want to be on one that does that, and kind of don't... Our airforce used to operate the Hawker Siddeley Andover which was a STOL aircraft with the second largest prop blades of any aeroplane in the world. Taking off in one of them in STOL format is a pretty weird feeling. It actually takes off so steeply that the wings are completely stalled. The props become like helicopter rotors and just pull the aircraft into the air. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

5th March 2007, 08:04 PM	#36
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	Watching those I can easily see how all those witnesses at the Pentagon could have mistaken a 20 ft long cruise missile, or a propeller driven Predator UAV for a 757. /end sarc God bless the Boeing company!!! JamesB Seattle, WA
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,152	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

5th March 2007, 08:09 PM	#37
JimBenArm Based on a true story! Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 13,092	Originally Posted by JamesB Watching those I can easily see how all those witnesses at the Pentagon could have mistaken a 20 ft long cruise missile, or a propeller driven Predator UAV for a 757. /end sarc God bless the Boeing company!!! JamesB Seattle, WA I drive by a railroad yard every day on my way to work. Occasionally, there are 737 bodies on cars, on their way to Wichita for assembly. Way smaller than a 757 or 767. Yeah, I could see how you could mistake that for a missle (not!). I've seen a few missles up close & personal, and to think you could mistake something that small for something as large as a commercial aircraft, even a small commercial jet, is absurd!
	__________________ *"JimBenArm is right"* Hokulele Mom

5th March 2007, 08:15 PM	#38
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by gumboot The selection of targets by Al Qaeda is actually pretty well documented. KSM chose two and OBL chose two. I believe OBL wanted to hit The Pentagon and the White House, however it was concluded that the White House would be far too difficult to hit, being rather small and low to the ground. So instead it was chosen that the targets would be the Capitol and The Pentagon. The Pentagon would actually be exceedingly easy to locate. Not only is it the largest office building in the world, but well, it's in the shape of a giant frikken pentagon! KSM chose the two towers as his preferred targets. Furthermore, we know that AA77's target was The Pentagon and UA93's target was the Capitol Building. -Gumboot And using the example of New York, the cameras in Washington would have been out in force expecting the second attack. And worldwide we would have seen live footage of United 93 screaming down the Mall and taking out the Rotunda. That was what the passengers of United 93 stopped from happening. You wish people would leave the word "diabolical" alone so that it could be properly employed to things like this.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

6th March 2007, 02:50 AM	#39
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 25,327	Originally Posted by Horatius Any idea how fast those flybys were? 350kt (402MPH) 100ft, pulling up to 45^o of climbout to 7500ft. That's straight from the horse's mouth... WGCDR Davies, 757 display pilot and former CO 40 SQN, RNZAF. -Gumboot
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.