|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jun 4, 2005 22:50:45 GMT -4
Jay, I'm just amazed at the things that he comes up with. Must stay up nights trying to be silly.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 5, 2005 1:51:25 GMT -4
I wrote: "The fire was burning out in one of the two towers but it was the first to crash, to be destroyed. Don't you think this is a little strange?"
LunarOrbit wrote: "Not at all".
Explain, please. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 5, 2005 19:01:13 GMT -4
How is someone supposed to explain why something is not strange? Why don't you explained why you think it was strange?
|
|
|
Post by rustylander on Jun 18, 2005 1:38:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jun 18, 2005 21:15:17 GMT -4
OMG ROTFLMAO!!!! There's a programme of Sky One about this. Some goon suggests something anomalous about the WTC impacts like this:
Airliners like that require special transponders and flightpaths to land at airports.
ROTFLMAOABI!!!! The oh-so-knowledgeable gimp can't even use the term ILS, which is generally what is used. You don't need a transponder to use an ILS. The transponder is only for identification. The flightpaths used are simply for traffic coordination. Aircraft can make other kinds of approaches including visual approaches. You don't technically need any kind of aid to land provided you have VMC.
You can't do the kinds of maneuvers those aircraft did and hit the towers without FBW.
Stop it, you're killing me. The gimp doesn't even know what FBW is. The only difference in the means of getting the signal from the pilot to the control surfaces. He's still got to point the aircraft at the target.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 18, 2005 23:32:12 GMT -4
Now, I'm not an engineer but the way I heard it, the collapse was - as in a lot of things - due to a combination of factors.
I think the primary cause was the design of the building. IIRC, the design had a lot of it's structural strength gain from the framework on the outside of the building. This eliminated the need for traditional supporting structures within the building thus freeing up leasable floor space.
The outer structure was damaged by the imapct. The fire - along with poorly applied insulation - weakened the structure further. It eventually collapsed, causing the floors above to cave in on the affected area. This sudden additional loading ( the force of the floors collaping on the affected areas) caused the areas below to exceed design tolerance and also collapse. It then became a domino effect downwards and each collapse caused the structure under it to fail.
Is this right?
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jun 18, 2005 23:53:26 GMT -4
OMG You can't do the kinds of maneuvers those aircraft did and hit the towers without FBW.Stop it, you're killing me. The gimp doesn't even know what FBW is. The only difference in the means of getting the signal from the pilot to the control surfaces. He's still got to point the aircraft at the target. That is humorous, because the more common conspiracist claim is that the tight turn the second hijacker-pilot made in order to hit the tower is impossible "because the flight computer won't allow it" and that therefore the plane must have been remote controlled/specially modified for the attack/not a civilian airliner/a hologram/a UFO/ whatever. BTW, does "fly by wire" translate into English as "all commands from the pilot controls to the control surfaces are mediated by the computer"? I know a couple of console automation systems that work like that- pressing a button appears to control a bit of circuitry directly, but what actually happens is that pressing the button sends an interrupt signal to the computer, which then reads the channel switch interface bits, detects the keypress and then writes the appropriate bit to the channel's automation write register to control the actual switching circuit, even when the mix automation system is not enabled. If my understanding of the term "fly by wire" is correct, is that actually how the Boeings used in the attacks are designed?
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jun 19, 2005 6:19:29 GMT -4
BTW, does "fly by wire" translate into English as "all commands from the pilot controls to the control surfaces are mediated by the computer"? On the modern Airbuses but not on Boeings, which use soft limits. They'll let you do what you want but sound alarms at you. The Boeings used in the attacks weren't FBW.
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jun 19, 2005 14:06:23 GMT -4
Thanks, Glom. Those two little bits of information seem enough to put paid- completely and finally- to all of the remote-controlled plane/impossible maneuvers/etc. conspiracy theories. Of course, these same claims can be expected still to be circulating long after the last person who knew about the design of these airplanes and the last technical publication about them are dust and ashes. If only I could have a car, or a computer, or even a potato peeler with the same durability as PCTs.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 20, 2005 4:36:45 GMT -4
That is humorous, because the more common conspiracist claim is that the tight turn the second hijacker-pilot made in order to hit the tower is impossible "because the flight computer won't allow it" and that therefore the plane must have been remote controlled/specially modified for the attack/not a civilian airliner/a hologram/a UFO/ whatever. It just goes to show that few of them have been in a plane coming into airports such as Sydney, Auckland and Honolulu. They really throw the planes about getting into them and these are the big 747's not just the smaller 767's and 777's
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jun 20, 2005 5:18:00 GMT -4
That is humorous, because the more common conspiracist claim is that the tight turn the second hijacker-pilot made in order to hit the tower is impossible "because the flight computer won't allow it" and that therefore the plane must have been remote controlled/specially modified for the attack/not a civilian airliner/a hologram/a UFO/ whatever. It just goes to show that few of them have been in a plane coming into airports such as Sydney, Auckland and Honolulu. They really throw the planes about getting into them and these are the big 747's not just the smaller 767's and 777's Just think about the approaches into old Hong Kong airport!
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jun 26, 2005 23:41:32 GMT -4
BTW, does "fly by wire" translate into English as "all commands from the pilot controls to the control surfaces are mediated by the computer"? On the modern Airbuses but not on Boeings, which use soft limits. They'll let you do what you want but sound alarms at you. After some dramatic examples of why ground based computer software and engineering people should not be the ones deciding what is or isn't a safe and valid command, Airbus rewrote more pilot control into the software.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 27, 2005 21:29:29 GMT -4
There was a story on the news last night about the controlled demolition of a building somewhere (in the USA I think). The newsreader said that 600 kilograms of explosive was used to knock it down. Now assuming the demolition experts weren't telling pork pies, that's a lot of stuff to place in a building without people noticing - about as much as 6 or 7 adult males.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 28, 2005 6:25:28 GMT -4
There was a story on the news last night about the controlled demolition of a building somewhere (in the USA I think). The newsreader said that 600 kilograms of explosive was used to knock it down. Now assuming the demolition experts weren't telling pork pies, that's a lot of stuff to place in a building without people noticing - about as much as 6 or 7 adult males. Especially if you consider that you cannot just dump the explosives in a corner, but you have to set them up where they can knock out the load-bearing elements.
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jun 28, 2005 11:48:57 GMT -4
Especially if you consider that you cannot just dump the explosives in a corner, but you have to set them up where they can knock out the load-bearing elements. It don't signify- people will claim that you can just dump the explosives in the hall,. or the janitor's closet. If the absurdity of believing that a working office building could be surreptitiously prepared for explosive demolition is too obvious to overcome, them it will be claimed that the explosives were installed when the towers were constructed. If that one gets laughed off the stage, expect pages of numbers purporting to prove that there wasn't enough gravitational potential energy in the structures to pulverize the concrete, and on and on. Refuting, or even keeping track of, the conspiracist catechism is like eating Jell-o with chopsticks. Where's the beating-head-against-brick-wall smiley when I need it?
|
|