not without the aid of somehow getting air into it, free burning jet fuel cannot get hotter than 520F without some kind of extra oxygen source. There were no bellows up in those buildings.
9/11 what do you think?
- Thread starter smokermore
- Start date
I just nod and politely agree all the while trying to extract myself.
I can't make heads nor tails of 90% of it.
Of course, you don't need the fires burning that hot anyway. Steel weakens at substantially lower temperatures; add deficient fireproofing and you have a serious problem.
What temperature does drywall burn at?
echelon1k1
New Member
Doable with practice? sure... Doable first time, under pressure, real world, not so sure... But at least you can pull a vehicle over. But yeah cars, trucks and planes are so similar.
They had lots of practice. I'm sure flying school wasn't the only thing they did--a cheap flight simulator program will teach you a lot about flying. A plane certainly isn't a car or a truck, but it's also not that different, if you don't have to worry about taking off or landing. Pointing is easy; changing numbers in a navigation panel is easy.
echelon1k1
New Member
pointing a gun is easy too, doesn't mean you'll fire it with any accuracy...
If you shoot a gun 5,000 feet away from a target, the bullet goes where it will go. If you're flying the bullet, able to control it as it hurtles toward the target, your accuracy should be substantially better than if you just took a shot from some distance.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Link?
Also, those buildings were chimneys. They entrained gales of air when the fire started. cn
echelon1k1
New Member
You finished? If you apply your theory to flight 77 it all falls apart.
Am I finished? No one was shooting planes out of barrels from a mile away. You made the comparison, not me.
What about Flight 77?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Only reason I knew he was referring to me is because he followed me from thread to thread with the same post in 4 or 5 threads telling people I am a butt worm or something. So while 90% is unintelligible, the other 10% is infantile.
echelon1k1
New Member
i'm trying to keep up with the bullshit comparisons you keep putting out like comparing a Cessna 172 with a Boeing 757...
Hani Hanjour was a pathetic pilot by all accounts, but hit the pentagon no problems. Just pointed and prayed did he?
I didn't compare them, you did. It's not in dispute that the pilots were all training on Boeing simulators; pointing the plane, whether it's a Cessna 172 or a Boeing 757, just isn't a difficult thing to do. We know the terrorists used autopilot to get back to Washington on Flight 77, for example.
I used to live next to the Pentagon. I've been inside too, to the site of the impact of Flight 77. Do you know how huge the place is? Evidently not if you're suggesting that it would be difficult to hit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Link to proof of gales of air being forced into the atomized fuel load?
Don't mess with an X-Box warrior!
echelon1k1
New Member
at 500mph in 757? please....
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Naval aviators routinely hit a much much smaller window at 200 mph in all weather, and in aircraft not much lighter and with higher wingloading. cn
Don't forget that he wrestled control of the flight from the Captain first.
Charles Burlingame, Naval Aviator, 6'4", 240 lbs
Hanjour was what, 140?
Flying a heavy jet is exactly like playing x-box, only 4 or 5 controls, the rest is just hollywood magic. Airplanes don't really have all those instruments. Just a pedal, a steering wheel and a blinker. Flying a 747 heavy is the same as flying a hang glider, just gotta lean into it.
echelon1k1
New Member
I have no doubt at all a qualified naval aviator could hit that mark, proof of this are carrier landings. But a shitty unqualified "pilot" who couldn't even do a solo flight in a Cessna 150 flies like a pro when it counts? Something isn't right there...
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Awesome. Too good.