Wilber

You will have to enlighten me.

By all accounts the shootings in Virginia were committed with a pair of semi automatic hand guns. I know of no incidence where one of these mass killings was committed with an antiquated firearm so am at a loss when it comes to understanding what banning their ammunition would accomplish.

Are you suggesting Koreans would be better off if the north had won? The US suffered nearly 170,000 casualties to see that they didn't. do you see what the article is about? it is about US Korean war policy, that saw the US gunning down civilians.Intentionally. run with that, ok? Korean war policy was to defend the south from invasion. Nearly 170,000 Americans were killed and wounded doing that. Run with that OK.

Ditto

Pathetic, you really are a piece of work.

Are you suggesting Koreans would be better off if the north had won? The US suffered nearly 170,000 casualties to see that they didn't.

Unlike you I have only offered an opinion on something of which I have extensive first hand knowledge so don't keep refering to wtc 7 when you talk to me. I haven't been part of that debate although I do have an opinion which I will keep to myself.

The difference is that I am not taking a position and then trying to justify it. If I really thought there was some kind of conspiracy it would be in my own best interest to see it exposed. I critiqued the AA77 simulation using 35 years of practical experience and knowledge that every airline pilot has. You have no idea what my experience is so don't jump to conclusions on that score. My opinion represents that of the vast majority of pilots, not a minority as you suggest. I cannot help it if you only go to sources which support your own delusions and ignore or belittle everything that contradicts them.

It's not unusual for your average airline pilot to put an aircraft in the center of the runway with crosswinds gusting into the 30Kt range. It can be hard work but it is just part of the job.

Not to mention the fighter cover provided by carriers often outnumbered them by a factor of several to one. Many of them never got within sight of the ships because of it.

Actually they normally missed or got shot down. They were not an affective weapon - they were a weapon created out of desperation. True, most were shot down before they got to their targets and they were too little too late but that doesn't alter the fact they sunk or damaged over 400 ships and caused around 10,000 casualties.

Interesting. Poorly trained Kamikazis were able to hit moving ships a fraction of the size of the Pentagon while being shot at by hundreds of anti aircraft guns.

I looked at the simulation and told you what I saw. You can accept it or reject it, I don't care.

Just for the hell of it I had a quick look at the simulation for AA77 on your PF911T sight. According to this simulation, the aircraft started its turn at about 8000 feet. Why, because he was too close to the building to hit it from that altitude and the easiest way to lose altitude without excessive speed and using too much airspace is to make a 360. The turn was flown at speeds between 260 and 300 Kts IAS at between 20 and 30 degrees of bank. At one point the bank went to 45 degrees but was quickly corrected. Throttles were at idle throughout the turn. This is a normal descending turn. Bank angle for maneuvering in terminal areas is 30 degrees. This is what ATC expects when they give you a turn. Speed is high because 250 kts is the ATC speed limit below 10000 ft. but is not excessive. Control movements are harsh (lots of over correcting) and it must have been an uncomfortable ride in the back but as the aircraft was also descending, G forces would be low. Pitch control was erratic (he leveled off and climbed a little in the turn at one point) probably because he was looking out the opposite window trying to relocate the building. Not an uncommon error when flying a visual pattern. It was not a well flown maneuver but was perfectly safe. I don't know where you got this 6 G idea and at no time was the aircraft anywhere near its stall speed at those bank angles. Pilots are required to demonstrate 45 degree bank turns in level flight at a constant speed during their sim checks. Sometimes they will do 60 degrees or more for training purposes. I have done jet upset recovery training where bank angles went over 90 degrees before we were allowed to start the recovery. You can make what you want of the final dive, the fact is, he hit the building. You can call it skill or good luck, it doesn't matter. Flight data recorders do not give continuous readouts but are continually updating. It is unlikely an aircraft of the 757's vintage would have had the latest recorder technology installed. The aircraft was traveling well over 700 ft per second at impact so altitude readings in the final moments are going to be arguable. Possibly not hand flown but given a couple of hours in a simulator it could be easily taught using the autopilot.

Me neither.

Are you talking Brett or Bobby? Brett. Bobby never played international hockey for the US.

When it comes to flight paths, g forces and stall speeds and angles I can tell whether an aircraft could follow a given flight path from the numbers. I bet you could not. Much more convincing than being able to fly the real thing.

When it comes to aviation, what you think doesn't carry much weight.

All pilots who fly for airlines have flown a variety of aircraft in their careers. The subject has been beat to death in a million cockpits, pubs, beaneries and layover hotel bars as well as thousands of recurrent training sessions given by real experts to real pilots and flight attendants. Been there, got the hat, jacket, tee shirt and glasses. The difference between the great majority of airline pilots and the so called "Pilots for 911 Truth" is the majority have been honest enough to admit to themselves that given the state of the industry, their training and knowledge at that time, if it had been their aircraft on that day, the outcome would most probably have been the same.

Me to.

Except when he played for Calgary. So what. How many elite Canadian athletes went to US colleges on scholarships, still train in the US and in many cases live there because that is the only place they can compete at a level they need to be at the top of their sport? It's surprising more of them don't chose to compete for the US because they wouldn't be where they are without the US system. To say that Hull is some kind of traitor because he first learned to play hockey as a kid in Canada is nonsense.

Not only was he born in Ontario, he was drafted out of the B.C. junior hockey system, and grew up in Winnipeg while his dad played for the Jets. And yes, his mother is American. Played college hockey and has lived in the US since, as well as playing his whole professional career in the US. We don't have any trouble claiming athletes born elsewhere as Canadians. Donovan Bailey and Daniel Igali to name just a couple. Think what our track and field history would look like if it wasn't for foreign born athletes, yet we seem to think that if someone was born in Canada they should be Canadian forever or are traitors. Kind of hypocritical IMO.

I think we attract quite a few although certification is a problem. Language skills are probably as big a problem as medical qualifications in many cases. If we put restrictions on the movement of Canadian trained personnel, of course it would be unethical to try and attract those from other countries.

Doesn't surprise me at all. If your profession is in demand, you can go anywhere you want. 1 in 9 sounds quite reasonable. Around here there are a lot of doctors from Asia and Europe. We probably import more who were trained in other countries than we export.

My mistake about Hull. He wasn't picked for Team Canada and the Americans wanted him. Almost always a good choice to go somewhere you are wanted. I think having a player of his stature playing for the US was a good thing for the game at that time, they didn't have many. I agree that Cherry is a good choice to market the game in the US.