IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Plane Crash Easily Could Have Happened!

SpeedyBanana
post Mar 11 2010, 07:13 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 11-March 10
Member No.: 4,955



I've watched part of the Loose Change video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pF-ClnX2Xc and http://www.youtube.com/wa...Yh4Ow&feature=related) on YouTube at the request of a friend who wanted my input on the aviation portion of the video. I don't know about you guys but I actually have flight experience. I'm not an airline pilot but have logged over 65 hours in a Piper Cherokee PA 28-180, have completed all my lessons and cross country flights and am in the process of completing my written test and flight test in Canada for my Private Pilot License.

I was shocked at the amount of ignorance presented in this video.

1). The video mentions that all pilots are trained to use the 7500 transponder code to notify ATC that they are being hijacked. This is true... in fact you learn this very early on even in Private Pilot training. There are three basic codes:

7700 means you're in real danger. The way we remember it is "77 half way to heaven"
7600 means you're having engine trouble. "76 engine needs fix"
7500 means you're being hijacked. "75 someone's trying to hitch a ride"

On the ATC's screen it would actually show you as 7500, and the ATC controller would immediately know what's going on (hopefully). They use the transponder to differentiate between radar contacts so normally when you're within the control zone of the airport they'll tell you to change transponder code to something random so it's easier for them to keep track of all the planes. However... I can tell you right now that if someone, or a group of people, busts through your door into the cockpit and have some kind of a weapon, the last thing going through your mind would be to turn the transponder dials and dial in 7500. I mean... common sense people... the first thing that would go through your mind would be fear and confusion. Besides, anyone who has flown for even a few hours at their local flight school knows about the three basic transponder codes. It wouldn't be a secret, or hard to change once the plane had been taken over. I'm not sure if ATC has an alarm go off when 7500 is dialed in or if they just have to pay attention, so I'm not going to comment on that.


2). At 8:45 in part 4 of 10 it says that "If [the guy] wanted to inflict maximum damage, all he had to do was nose down into the roof of the Pentagon"

WRONG!!

Let me explain some basic principles of aerodynamics and plane design. Planes have four forces acting upon them. Lift, Weight, Drag, Thrust. (http://www.myaeromodellin...01/aerodynamic-force2.jpg)

These forces are not aligned. The planes are designed like that for a reason. It helps create something called Equilibrium. In order to make the plane safer it is designed so that these forces are off set in a way that becomes beneficial. The center of lift is behind the center of gravity so if the plane was to stall it has a tendency of pointing its nose down and in turn descending and regaining speed. If the plane is moving too quickly it has a tendency of pointing the nose up and gaining altitude and in turn reducing speed. I don't think I need to explain how stupid it would be if the plane had a tendency to pull up the closer it got to stalling, or pull down the faster it went.

According to this website (http://911research.wtc7.n...anes/attack/flight77.html) At 9:29 the plane was 35 miles west of the Pentagon flying at 7,000 feet. At 9:34 it was about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and started a 330-degree descending right turn, bringing it to an altitude of about 2000 feet four miles southwest of the Pentagon.

I would assume that this meant that at 9:34 the plane was 3.5 nautical miles from the Pentagon at 7000 feet. Not sure if this is AGL or ASL (above ground level / above sea level), not that it really matters since I doubt the Pentagon is 2000 feet ASL or something ridiculous so there was probably not a big difference between the two. Now I don't know about you guys but I've actually flown at 7000 feet and can tell you that if your target, be it a runway or a building, is 3.5 nm away and you're at 7000 feet, the stupidest thing you could do is dive straight down on it. I'm not sure if any of you guys remember trigonometry from grade 9, but if you plug 7000 feet altitude, 3.5 nm from target, you'll see that the approach angle to the target would be over 18 degrees. A landing 757 normally has a 2.7 to 4.0 degree angle of approach with 3.0 degrees being the "average" (http://stoenworks.com/Tut...%20land%20airplanes.html). An 18 degree angle of approach is over 6 times that.

Whoever said "If [the guy] wanted to inflict maximum damage, all he had to do was nose down into the roof of the Pentagon" clearly has no understanding of aviation or aerodynamics. This was a 757 not a Stuka Dive Bomber. Every plane has a list of V speeds, which list thing such as Minimum Safe Takeoff Speed, Stall Speed, etc. I don't know what the V speeds for a 757, and I don't need to. These planes aren't fighter jets; they can only go so fast before their wings rip off and it doesn't take as much as you'd think. I'm not really willing to spend the time to do the math on how fast the plane would have increased in speed given the information available as it would take too long, but can tell you what probably would have happened. The plane would have increased in speed rapidly. It would have become harder and harder to control and the pilot would have been forcing the control column down until either some safety device would have kicked in (possibly, I don't know the 757 flight systems) or until the plane ripped apart from the stress. This would all likely happen before reaching the Pentagon.

Now in actuality you might be able to descend safely at an 18 degree angle of approach on a 757, I'm not sure, though I'm certain it would still be rather ridiculous and dangerous. What I do know is that you'd have to use flaps and most likely throttle to idle. You'd try to glide down with a high angle of attack trying to keep the plane just above stall speed. There are a number of problems with this approach that I will explain below. Had the pilot used this approach I would have been very impressed with his flying skill.

For those of you who don't know, there is a difference between where a plane is pointing and where it is moving. This is called AoA or Angle of Attack (http://aviationfans.com/images/aoa.jpg)
If you look at the image you will see that even though the airplane is pointing up, it is moving straight and level. In order to successfully descend into the Pentagon from 7000 feet / 3.5 nm away he would have had a high angle of attack. http://home.clara.net/rod.beavon/c11d-747-400.jpg Here is a 747 cockpit. As you can see (or rather can't) there is very little visibility up or down (the 757 is no different really). These planes mostly operate on instruments. The visibility is more than enough for take off or landing assuming the proper angle of approach. Had the pilot descended into the Pentagon at 18 degrees he wouldn't have been able to see the Pentagon. It would have been below the nose of the plane. Had he successfully crashed the plane this way I would have been very impressed as it would take some incredibly precise and skillful flying to aim for a target you can't even see.


3). The video continues to say that instead of nosing down, the pilot (I don't know how to spell his name) begins "a complicated 330 degree turn, dropping 7000 feet and exposing himself for and extra 3 minutes while executing a maneuver described by experienced pilots as nearly impossible.

WOW.... the stupidity of this statement is unbelievable. If the creators of this documentary could give me the contact information of these "skilled pilots" I would actually like to get in contact with them to try and understand WTF they were talking about (if they even exist). Let me explain to you people how "nearly impossible" this maneuver is and why you learn it during Private Pilot Training before you even learn how to land the plane. Let's assume he did a 360 degree turn because 330 leads me to believe he was pretty much pointed at the target and just wanted to descend and crash into the building at a lower altitude. You have a number of instruments in the plane that tell you your heading. Compass, Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI), etc. If you're flying on a heading of 230 degrees, all you have to do is reduce throttle a bit to slow down, point the nose a little below the horizon, or just use the Attitude Indicator, bank slightly to the left or right.... and stay there... until the compass swings around to 230 degrees again. BAM you're now at 230 again and have lost altitude. There is an instrument available on almost every single plane called a Turn and Bank Indicator (http://en.wikipedia.org/w.../Turn_and_bank_indicator). The tool is rather simple. If you bank the plane to the left or the right the needle swings to the left or the right. There are two notches on the instrument. If you bank the plane and hold the needle on the notch, you're in a Rate 1 Turn. It's basically a standard. Rate 1 Turn means you're turning at 3 degrees per second. It would take 2 minutes to turn 360 degrees and 1 minute to turn 180 degrees. This is designed for precision turns and if you ever get stuck in a cloud or something and for some reason your compass or HSI doesn't work you can easily go into a Rate 1 Turn and know that after 1 minute you're now 180 degrees and are moving out of the cloud. It's all rather simple. A Rate 1 Turn is very gentle, and if the pilot took 3 minutes to regain course from when he started the descent it clearly shows that he wasn't exactly skilled nor was he pulling some kind of precise fighter pilot maneuver.

The above statement is so incredibly stupid it's the same as saying "the driver began a complicated three-point turn, executing a maneuver described by championship race car drivers as nearly impossible"

Again.. please send me the contact info of these "skilled pilots" as I would love to find out who they are and have a chat with them.


4). These planes are not difficult to fly. The act of turning, climbing and descending a 757 is easier than in a Cessna. These planes have flight control computers, hydraulic controls, and a number of other systems that make the act of using the control column, throttle, and rudder peddles one of the easiest parts of a pilot's job. The complication in flying the plane comes from understanding all of its systems, navigation, laws and regulations, emergency procedures, etc, not from moving the airplane around. Most people think that these planes, or a fighter jet for example, would be impossible to fly by someone that can barely handle a Cessna. WRONG!!!!!!! These planes many many times easier to fly than a Cessna. They are designed that way so the act of flying the plane takes as little mental or physical energy of the pilot as possible so he can focus on the many other systems in the plane. Landing is obviously a different story as these planes are larger and operate at higher speeds and therefore require more skill and precision to safely get them on the ground. However, if your objective is to crash them into a building I can assure you it would take very little skill. Anyone with a few hours of flight training would easily be able to do it, and quite honestly I think even a few hours on Microsoft Flight Simulator is more than enough. I have performed well over 100 take-offs and landings in a Piper Cherokee (a Cessna equivalent) and can assure you that it's far more difficult to fly in Microsoft Flight Simulator (even with over $300 in joysticks, throttles and other aviation sim gear) than it is to take off, fly, and land, in real life.


5). The part about the lack of aircraft debris again shows how little common sense or logic is presented in this "documentary". These planes are made from very light weight materials, not solid steel and titanium. They are NOT designed to survive a crash or a fire.

The basic empty weight of a 757 with no passengers / cargo / fuel (just the plane itself and all the materials) is 127,500 lb
The basic weight of an A1 Abrams = 136,000 lb

The A1 Abrams is 1/5th the size (even smaller when you don't take into account the turret. It houses 4 people. The plane holds over 180 people. Hopefully this will put things into perspective for people as this "documentary" hasn't done a good job of that. If you've ever looked at airplane accidents you'll see that there isn't much left after a crash. These planes are not designed to crash and the materials they're built with are not designed to take an impact or survive a fire. They're primarily mean't to be light, yet still strong enough to take the stress of FLYING, not crashing into a reinforced building. The documentary goes to say that the Pentagon side that was hit was reinforced yet is surprised when there is just a small hole in the building, which would correspond with where the fuselage (almost all of the aircraft materials and weight) impacted. DUHHHHH..... common sense anyone???!? There is clearly visible damage and fire all over the area, not just at the impact hole so I'm not even sure what they were talking about there not being damage from the wings or tail.



There are many other points made in this documentary that seriously destroy its credibility and I don't have the time or the interest to go over everything. I think most people with some common sense and an interest to do a little self study would have come to the same conclusions (at least as far as the aviation portion goes) Based on what little I've gathered from this video and other sources I think that most of the information points to the fact that the pilot was not very skilled. The 330 degree descending turn is one of the simples maneuvers I can think of. It doesn't take a lot of skill or intelligence to bank a plane and level out when the compass reaches the same point (or close enough) that you started at.

I think what probably happened was the pilot descended to a lower altitude and aimed to hit the Pentagon. He was probably too stupid and unskilled to realize that if you're aiming at the building and see it clearly through the cockpit than you're descending and are not actually going to hit the place that your plane is aiming at (refer back to Angle of Attack). He probably realized that he was going to impact the ground short of the Pentagon and managed to pull up at the last minute. There is something called "Ground Effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w...Ground_effect_in_aircraft) where a plane will actually experience more lift while close to the ground . I think that if you look at the information you'll see that he got very lucky and managed to pull up just in time and skim along the ground just long enough to reach the building. A split second longer to react and he would have probably crashed on the lawn or the road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Mar 11 2010, 07:41 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



How about there was no one on those 9/11 planes... is that possible?

How about no plane hit the pentagon?

How can they identify and the passenger DNA and not find a shred of luggage or any body parts?

How did the bandanna and the IDs survive the plane crashes in PA and in NYC?

How about that stages evidence of a plane wheel shown on Rector street? Who faked those photos?

Why was all the wreckage or the pentagon sanitized immediately and none of it preserved or actually positively identified as being from flight 77?

How come with scores of video cameras running at or near the pentagon on 4 frames showing an explosion are the only ones released?

How come?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpeedyBanana
post Mar 11 2010, 09:08 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 11-March 10
Member No.: 4,955



How about there was no one on those 9/11 planes... is that possible?
Why wasn't there anyone, because they found no bodies? Who says they didn't find any bodies? Where can I get the information?

How about no plane hit the pentagon?
So your saying that there's no evidence, or witness's that say that it was a plane?

How can they identify and the passenger DNA and not find a shred of luggage or any body parts?
Where did they get the so called DNA from?

How did the bandanna and the IDs survive the plane crashes in PA and in NYC?
Two different crashes, different variables involved.

How about that stages evidence of a plane wheel shown on Rector street? Who faked those photos?
Can I see the photo, and article to get a better understanding of this?

Why was all the wreckage or the pentagon sanitized immediately and none of it preserved or actually positively identified as being from flight 77?
There was no positive evidence that it was flight 77?

How come with scores of video cameras running at or near the pentagon on 4 frames showing an explosion are the only ones released?
Where can I get information on different video camera's at the pentagon, and why they haven't been released?


I'm seriously wondering, I WANT to agree with you but I need to know as much as I can.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Mar 11 2010, 09:16 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Welcome to the forum Speedy,

I stopped reading your post here...

"7600 means you're having engine trouble."

First, 7600 is not for "engine trouble" and you better learn what it is used for before you take your checkride.

The rest of your post i skimmed through, if your post is any indication of your aero knowledge, i'm sorry to say, you are not going to pass your check ride unless you get a really stupid examiner.

Speedy, you are WAY out of your league here. Click here to understand the experience level of the aviators who are members of this organization.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

click here to see our pretty smiles, some in uniform..

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Good luck on your flight test, you're gonna need it...lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Mar 11 2010, 09:21 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 844
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE (SpeedyBanana @ Mar 12 2010, 01:08 PM) *
How about there was no one on those 9/11 planes... is that possible?
Why wasn't there anyone, because they found no bodies? Who says they didn't find any bodies? Where can I get the information?

How about no plane hit the pentagon?
So your saying that there's no evidence, or witness's that say that it was a plane?

How can they identify and the passenger DNA and not find a shred of luggage or any body parts?
Where did they get the so called DNA from?

How did the bandanna and the IDs survive the plane crashes in PA and in NYC?
Two different crashes, different variables involved.

How about that stages evidence of a plane wheel shown on Rector street? Who faked those photos?
Can I see the photo, and article to get a better understanding of this?

Why was all the wreckage or the pentagon sanitized immediately and none of it preserved or actually positively identified as being from flight 77?
There was no positive evidence that it was flight 77?

How come with scores of video cameras running at or near the pentagon on 4 frames showing an explosion are the only ones released?
Where can I get information on different video camera's at the pentagon, and why they haven't been released?


I'm seriously wondering, I WANT to agree with you but I need to know as much as I can.

Hi Speedy,

Welcome to the forum. I was going to point you to the Loose Change forum but I see you already registered there and somebody sent you here.

If you approach absolutely everything with an open mind, don't assume that anything is proven and read extensively you should be able to work out that 9/11 was an "inside job".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Mar 12 2010, 01:25 AM
Post #6


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



start here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/evidence.html

watch the presentation:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

also watch pandora's box, chapter 2, either here (scroll down):
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

or buy it:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store

or find it here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...a=N&tab=wv#

then please come back with some informed questions here at this forum or here:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?act=idx


thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Mar 12 2010, 11:45 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



Speedy: Now just who do you work for..........Popular Mechanics???? You have really shown your lack of understanding and knowledge of flying.

Or, are you just another plank in the Cabal???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Domenick DiMaggi...
post Mar 19 2010, 07:28 PM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 312
Joined: 28-August 07
Member No.: 1,875



speedy bananas was a troll....

doyoueverwonder called him out in the loose change thread and he replied : Where did you get your information from? If you read what I wrote it doesn't take much skill to fly that.

apparently he came here first and ended up bringing his argument to lc where there are way less aviation experts....lol

this his "friend" appeared at lc and pretty much said his other 'friend' who started these threads was just trolling more or less.....

This post has been edited by Domenick DiMaggio CIT: Mar 19 2010, 07:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobcat46
post Mar 19 2010, 11:46 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 27-December 06
From: Hobe Sound, FL
Member No.: 382



This whole thread should just be deleted by the moderator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RVSM
post Sep 27 2012, 03:32 PM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: 24-September 12
Member No.: 7,033



Unbelievable.

This guy made a quick tour through Wikipedia to learn what "ground effect" was and then had the audacity to come here and "teach" it to the rest of the forum.

I wish I were here at the time he made this thread. We'd be talking about the 75's Vne as compared to its aerodynamically restricted maximum airspeed in level flight.

We'd then be talking about a C-172 check-ride failure and neophyte like Hani Hanjour, and the tactile yoke differential that he would have no experience with as he attempted to pushed a near 200,000lb commercial airframe carrying what had to be a cross continental fuel load around the sky like it was a 2,450lb low-performance SEL airframe.

And, the guy talks about using "common sense."

Common sense tells me that Hani, even if he had the skill and the ability to execute the 330-degree descending turn while maintaining roughly the same airspeed, he would not have had the tactile yoke experience to understand what kind of control inputs would have been necessary to first roll out of the descending turn, while at the very same time leveling off the nose and placing the wings almost perfectly on the horizon just before impact AND while pushing the throttle to max power at the very same time.

There is no way in Pluto that Hani, would have had enough tactile yoke experience in the 75, to know how to off-set spool-up lag and the resultant thrust coming from pushing both throttles to max power, WHILE at the same time rolling the wings and pitching the nose level on the horizon.

The very first time I flew a C-5B, I was a cadet in the USAF on an incentive program. I went flying that night before leaving Travis AFB, in a Tiger Grumman, my flight trainer at the time, with my instructor. I flew the Grumman for 2.0 hours that day - calling myself "getting ready for the Galaxy" that I knew I would be flying the next morning with four other selected cadets.

When it was my turn, I sat in the left seat with the Galaxy FO sitting in the right seat. He gave me some verbal instructions on what to do and what not to do. He asked me if I understood everything he said, and I replied: "Yes, Sir!" He said, put your hands on the yoke, "Pilot now has the ship."

I put my hands on the Yoke and IMMEDIATELY I could feel the enormous difference in the weight of the aircraft in my hands. I then began executing a series of shallow S-Turns - VERY shallow. Why VERY shallow? Because the damn thing felt like I was flying the entire Planet! It felt that heavy in my hands. Second, the SPEED at which everything was happening was completely foreign to me and we were doing no more than 300kts at the time. Third, I began executing shallow pitch maneuvers Up and Down. Again, the damn thing felt like I was flying a large Hanger! You could feel the speed and the weight of the aircraft and it was completely different than the Grumman Tiger.

I knew THEN that flying a high-performance multi-engine jet, was going to be completely different than anything I had ever flown at that time.

I can promise you, that a guy who could not handle a C-172, would have NO tactile sensation experience to draw upon that would prevent him from slamming the aircraft into the deck, while trying to pull out of a dive while pushing the throttle to max at the same time. It would simply be a flight regime that would have been Extra Terrestrial to Hani - period. He would NOT have been able to get the wings level and the nose on the horizon, while placing a hole in the side of the building at less than 77 feet off the deck, even if you allowed him to make that same attempt 100 times prior.

The perceived weight, speed, reaction time between flight control inputs and physical response from the aircraft, as well as the spool-up time -vs- the rate of thrust onset after pushing the throttles to max power - all of those factors take TIME to learn and to get used to, before you can man-handle something like heavy multi-engine commercial jet.

Given Hani's skill level, there is simply NO way he could have flow that strike profile. None. With all the luck in the world, he STILL would have slammed the aircraft into the ground LONG before he ever reached the Pentagon wall. He would have stuck one wing into the ground and that aircraft would have cartwheeled over the top of the Pentagon and we'd see a whole lot more Boeing 757-200 parts laying round on the ground than we saw on 911.

Jamie McIntyre, told us: "...there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." - despite how he later tries to alter his statements:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/soI67fOnU6Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 28 2012, 02:15 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Welcome to the forum RVSM!

Your insight is most valuable. Having never flown a Boeing, I agree completely with what you say. Having instructed for many years, it is a preposterous statement to claim that Hani could have done what he is alleged to have done.

For me, in addition to what you say, the last few seconds across the lawn is what is absurd. Even if he could have somehow made the turn and descent, there is no way he could have leveled off in ground effect at such speeds.

If the airplane had ended up in the middle of the Pentagon, that might be one thing, but to have done what the OCT requires is ridiculous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Sep 28 2012, 04:21 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I suppose only pilots would really appreciate how ridiculous this scenario is:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...Pent_Alt_ab.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/mer...scentAngle2.jpg

Thanks for putting it into perspective for the laymen amongst us.

If I ever enter a "debate" with GLs about this alleged manouevre, I post this reality check image to show what a 124fps (if we were to accept the various GL OCT subplots) descent actually entails:



rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Sep 28 2012, 04:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Sep 29 2012, 06:20 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 401
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Sep 29 2012, 05:51 AM) *
I suppose only pilots would really appreciate how ridiculous this scenario is:

[Thanks for putting it into perspective for the laymen amongst us.


Dear 'oneslice short'

Yes, and any passengers with them if they tried such a stunt.

Which, they wouldn't --because --they couldn't.

Robert S

ps --if any body in doubt, ask a Boeing design engineers opinion.
or any pilot on this forum, if they are prepared to be honest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 7th June 2020 - 06:29 AM