Where is the proof that the airliners existed at all?

Sorry Bob.but your incredulity isn't the point here...the truth is as it was stated,your trying to change that is silly.

 

Except for the stories about the alleged hijackers, there is NO hard evidence to support the hijacked airliners explanation of the events.

 

None that you'll accept,you men




what with your unrealistic standards of proof,that is

 

Is it unreasonable to question what is being presented?
the mainstream media has trotted out a collection of snapshots of scrap metal and then claims that the aircraft has been accounted for.

 

No Bob,What's unreasonable is your standard of proof...you will NOT accept any evidence from ANYONE that doesn't follow your warped view of the events of 9/11


Have you even botherd to ask the airlines if they accounted for everything?

 

What we have here is a VERY low standard of evidence
by a lot of people who accept the 19 suicidal hijackers story.

BTW: the airlines are for profit corporations and NOT in the business of investigating crashes.... that is the NTSB's job

 

there is no 'low standard of evidence' present....ALL the evidence proves theoffical account is the correct one...

BTW:I never said the airlines investigated the crashes,I asked if you had bothered to find out if THEY accounted for everything

 

I do, and I have good reason to.

 

Imagine if you will, the head of the operation issuing instructions to the suicidal hijackers in the form of, "and now for the "FLT175" bit, you will have to fly the aircraft in a manner that nobody has ever tried to do before, and there is no proof that the aircraft will stay together or be controllable, but do this anyhow." Right .....

 

It's not hard to crash a plane and the canard that the planes were unable to fly at those speeds, and stresses at that that height has been shown to be false repeatedly. Furthermore, it's blatantly obvious they did.

Your imaginary conversation isn't likely to have taken place, as it is completely unnecessary.

 

It has been shown beyond any doubt at all that in order to get an airliner >500 mph near sea level, it would ONLY be possible in a power dive mode of operation, and this requires a lot more pilot skill than could be expected of even experienced military pilots. Military pilots who performed the DIVE BOMBING of selected targets had a LOT of experience in the aircraft, + training to know when to start the dive & when to pull up in order to achieve the desired result.
Serious problem here is that in a power dive maneuver, the pilot needs to know when to start the dive ( that is not only from what altitude, but what position relative to the target... ) and know when to pull up, and then acquire the target and head for it, the flying problem here is too much to ask and leaves far too much room for human error + the possibility that due to pilot error, the stress of pulling out of the power dive breaks the wings off the aircraft. The margin for error is slim to none in this sort of scenario. and as for the "imaginary conversation", How would you have expected the hijacker pilots to have been instructed as to what to do?

 

For an excellent examination of the evidence for AA77, see CJ Newson's blog:

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com.au/

- - - Updated - - -

Bob, this is just one big argument from incredulity, as it simply a case of point and crash. Rob Balsamo (Pilots for Truth) has been disproven on this point many times, and just because he won't accept that he is wrong doesn't make him right.

As for the imaginary conversation, I was referring to the way you worded it. I truly doubt that ever took place.

 

No Bob,this is something truthers claim.....it hasn't been shown,

What HAS been shown,is that the speeds were NOT beyond the capability of the aircraft,and in over 100 years of general aviation,it STILL doesn't take a special skill to crash a plane.

 

Still, it is a fact that NOBODY flies any commercial airliner >500 at low altitude and therefore it is totally out in mystery land, it isn't documented and there is no guaranteed mode of control for any such stunt, the ability to actually control an aircraft under those conditions is totally a shot in the dark.

The other feature of this is that the perpetrators would have had to do a bit of research & whatever analysis necessary to know that an airliner could strike the WTC tower(s) and actually penetrate, it wouldn't do to have the aircraft simply bounce off the tower(s), how would anybody know without some research & calculation?

Not to mention the fact that airliners are assemblies of a multitude of individual parts that have been bolted together ( or? ) and as such are prone to becoming disassembled upon crashing, given the conditions of all 4 alleged airliner crashes in that the nose of the aircraft was first to contact the obstacle in question, WHY didn't the airliners break up into bits, rather than leaving behind the nice wing shaped impressions in the skyscrapers & also What special magic caused 99.9% of "FLT77" to enter the PENTAGON?

 

So now we've gone from 'impossible' to 'unprecedented'?

Bounce off? Bob, really?

Why didn't Purdue share your incredulity?

You say you know physics yet you don't seem to understand inertia.

 

Fact is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get the aircraft to fly >500 mph & <1000 ft altitude with just the jet engines, the ONLY way to achieve the speed is to power dive the aircraft and that is a VERY dangerous move! I dare say impossible to execute given the pilot inexperience.

absolutely I stick by what I have said, airliners are not infinitely strong and there are limits to what is physically possible, a STEEL skyscraper wall ( that is BTW only < 1/3 open space the rest is steel ) may have such strength as to not allow penetration except in the case of a military projectile having been designed to penetrate a target.

The professors at Purdue ( & other institutions ) like their cushy jobs and do not want to "rock the boat" ... therefore they produce what is politically correct.

Look at the angle that the alleged "FLT77" was said to have hit the PENTAGON and ask if there is a direct straight line path from any given part of the aircraft & into the hole that the aircraft was alleged to have entered the building through? Inertia is not the ONLY thing acting on the bits, some would be light enough such to have aerodynamic influence on said bits and they would then be subject to deflection from a path into the magic hole. WHY also should it have been that the aircraft would break up into bits that oh so conveniently fit through the hole in the wall rather than strike the wall and not enter? The "inertia" theory insists that ALL of the aircraft bits were precision aimed at the hole in the wall, how was that done?

 

Well, Bob, I haven't seen anything to support your contention yet, so I'll stay on the fence atm.

Oh come on Bob, it was a lattice of steel and glass that was easily penetrated at the speeds recorded.

That is just libel Bob and not really worthy of a response.

Check out the work done on these two sites:

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

or

http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com.au/

These sites may help you understand the flight path in context.

 

There's a valid reason why no one flies airliners in that fashion,,They'd really REALLY like to sit in the pilot's chair again.

 

Not even for airshow stunts because its a fact that the jet engines that commercial airliners use are optimized for powering the airliner at cruising altitude and NOT <1000 ft and therefore will NOT propel the aircraft to such outrageous speeds so near ground level.
Note that the power required to propel and airliner goes up with the CUBE ( that is X^3 ) of the velocity ( look it up! ) therefore in two factors, one that the air is denser at low altitude and another that the aircraft can NOT be pushed to >500 by the engines alone and the "POWER DIVE" scenario is just plane ridiculous!

I repeat the question, what special magic caused 99.9% of "FLT77" to enter the PENTAGON?

 

Despite your cracked math,the fact remains,they flew that fast on 9/11,and NOTHING you say disproves that


No special magic needed,just mass coupled with velocity/momentum

 

RE: "cracked math" do you deny that it is a factor, that is the power required to propel an aircraft through air increases by the CUBE ( that is X^3 ) of the velocity? That is to fly at 300 mph requiring X amount of power and then to propel the same aircraft to 600 mph requires 8 times the power as the previous example. Do you get this? This is significant in that the jet engines commercial airliners are equipped with will not power the aircraft to such high speeds near sea level.

and to address the special magic issue, the inertia of the aircraft bits would have to also have excellent aim so as to make the bits follow a precise path to enter the building.

 

Annnnnnd yet you haven't proven the engines wouldn't have,while the witnesses had to rely on their lying eyes.

Sorry Bob,but just whining that it 'couldn't have' doesn't overshadow the fact that it DID

 

So what you insist upon is that the engines are capable of 8X the power that then use when traveling at 300 mph <1000 ft altitude? That is the pilots only need to apply 1/8 throttle to get the aircraft to fly at 300 mph & @ <1000 ft altitude, right? WHY should the airlines invest $$$! in engines that could propel the aircraft to speeds that they will never use, for various reasons.

You forget that without PHYSICAL evidence to back up "eyewitnesses" their testimony is only marginal in nature, where is the physical evidence?

 

Why do you insist it would have taken '8X' the powerWhen less power was needed to acheive the same amount of lift at lower altitude?

Ask yourself why the car companies made cars that could do in excess of over 110 MPH,if they were never going to be driven that fast?

Could it be that maybe it's safer at a lower speed,and that it might be the case in the air as well?

 

Quoted from WIKI ..... The fact is that YES it does take 8 times the power to double the speed of an aircraft or a VW Bus whatever its a fact of the physical world.