Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AzCivic
thats one of your best "facts"; software to prevent high G manuevers?? yeah because there's no way for pilots to advert a potential disaster that would require a "high G manuever" right? they got the pilots to give up the plane but getting them to over ride a program is just way too farfetched for you? I'm gonna take a guess and say that if there is such a thing, its not that complicated to override because for some reason if a commercial plane full of people is for some reason on a collision path with another aircraft, the designers aren't going to make it some long complicated procedure to let them veer the plane out of harms way.
do you not realize how rediculous that "fact" sounds?
What does timing have to do with anything? They went in with the excuse of possible wmd, why not plant some wmd!? oh they (the gov't) will kill thousands of innocent civilians to sway the countries' opinion but not plant some weapons out in the middle of a desert to gain even more support from their country AND THE WORLD. That just sounds retarded.
I think you watch too many movies.
|
You have to realize something Rob....these are commercial planes. It's not an F-16. They have to have safety measures put in place so, in the the event a pilot gets carried away, he doesn't break granny's neck doing something stupid and give cause for enormous amounts of liability lawsuits. And really...how do overpowering pilots and tampering with software have anything to do with each other? One qould require rather extensive knowledge of the plane and the software (if it were even possible to disable...it's not). The other is just brute force. There are other measures to combat thing like mid air collisions like...oh what's it called...
RADAR. I guess it might sound a bit ridiculous if you're not even willing to entertain the notion and are completely and utterly uninformed.
How about this...Galileo's law of falling bodies calculates the time an object will take to hit the ground in complete freefall. In it, distance equals 16.08 x seconds squared. The south tower was 1,362ft tall. So 1362 = 16.08 x 84.7...or 9.2 seconds. It took barely longer than 10 seconds for the building to come down, which means it was in almost complete freefall. When buildings collapse in a natural fashion they do not a) tend to fall straight down into a relatively neat little pile and b) enter a freefall-like state...they generally put up some resistance. That is, of course, unless they've been otherwise tampered with.
Now do I get to hear "that's ridiculous. It's just physics!"?
As for the whole planting evidence thing...you're still not hearing me. I'm merely saying we didn't HAVE to do anything. It's become blatantly obvious that this government does not care how it's viewed on the world stage, so why go to the trouble to plant weapons around Iraq? I mean it's not like we have any similar weapons that are nearly as primitive as what Iraqis would have, so you'd have to go to the trouble to fabricate evidence to plant it. We could have if we'd wanted to. Hell...it's probably even a good idea. But what's the point? "We" got what "we" wanted and no one remembers what WMD stands for anymore.