Again Mr allergish to science, words and promises engage thoses who believe in.
Without an experiment his words are not better than all thoses other pilots who says otherwise.
Why do you chose words from someone that suits your mind ? confirmation biais/10
That's not science, that's beliefs.

"Put eleven imbeciles on one side, ten philosophers on the other ... The fools will prevail. That is democracy!" J. Brel

This post was edited by Melatonina on Sep 16 2018 02:58am

What is your... point? What are you trying to say?

I watched the planes hit the WTC live on television as it was happening? Are you saying that it was something besides planes that hit the WTCs?

Allergic to science? Fucking LOL. That's an actual pilot, who actually flies the actual plane. And a check pilot, at that. Which means he knows the plane inside and out, and knows what it can do and what it cannot do.

That's called" real world experience", not "beliefs".

So far he's just been talking without showing anything close to what we witnessed 17 years ago.
They all just talk about their simulations it's hilarious.

Maybe I missed his video, do you have a link ?

Don't be daft, he did just that.

I think he's talking about AA77 and the Pentagon (at least, with regard to this 270 degree turn at speed).

seems you all forgot the other 9/11

you can't call simulations of the exact thing we're talking about hilarious when you presented a potato and fry cutter as evidence previously. if you can show that the simulators are incorrect for a specific reason in their programming, or even a practical logical reason in their overall design, that's fine. discounting them without doing either tho is a card sultan move. and should be avoided.

It was only to illustrate something, not proving it. I cant proof much myself here on a forum, I can only present some facts and then we discuss about it.

I dont have any problems with flight smiluators as long as it is confirmed by real experiment. Which it is lacking. Because as good as computers can be, they can still be unperfect.
No double check = not a valid scienfitic argument.



That is not the only one concerned, but yes it is the most obvious.

This post was edited by Melatonina on Sep 17 2018 12:03pm

your doubt in the simulator can not be separated from me doubting your doubt. you can't have doubt that the simulator proves a plan can fly at that level because you have no experiment proving it wouldnt work in real life. unless you fly a $50 million plane at full speed at a lower altitude and it rips itself apart like a tin can you can't doubt the simulator.