It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

page: 21
127
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Let me make sure I have got this right.... Pilots for Truth's findings are unfounded opinion due to the lack of hard numbers to back them up... however, you OTOH are qualified to unilaterally and with a complete absence of mathematical proof are qualified to "officially" state that none of the 9/11 planes were subjected to "excessive" speed or Gs as defined by the manufacturer's specs?

Waiting for you to put together that airspeed data and match it up with Boeing specs and safety guidelines for these planes, and show us with hard numbers that these planes were all operating safely within their rated limits as they approached their targets. Thanks in advance.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


You are an idiot. Your argument is that since the pilots of the "hijacked" aircraft were not concerned with safety, the speeds they were flying at before crashing into the WTC towers were not excessive.

Whether you care for your safety or not, maximum limits are set for a reason. Does your car have a rev counter? If yes, does it have a red line?
What would happen if you routinely operated your vehicle beyond the red line?

I have read most of your posts on this thread, and it is clear that you do not want to debate the OP, but would rather derail it.

You, sir, are an idiot.


I suppose when your arguments are so wafer thin you have to sling around the insults to make yourself feel better? Who knows.

Yes, my argument is pretty much as above. Although if you'd bothered to read it you'd see that I repeatedly - despite what "Tiffany" wants me to be saying - agree that the speeds are excessive. I just don't think they're impossible.

Neither, just FYI, does this Dwain Deets guy. Indeed he and Kolstad and the other P4T boys don't agree. So so much for your experts.

I'll leave aside your comparison with the car, because it's embarrassing for you. I mean, what do you think happens if you drive the car at the red line repeatedly? Even allowing for that, how could you possibly think that it was a worthwhile analogy? Anyway, as I say, we'll leave it.

My contention is that Tiffany started this thread claiming that a plane breaks up at any speed over 420 knots. Now apparently even "she" doesn't actually believe this.

You think that maximum limits are set for "a reason" that doesn't have anything to do with safety. Why are they set in this case? What is your "reason"? And do you think that they cannot be exceeded ever? Do you really think that a plane just automatically falls to bits as soon as it hits 420 knots? Because if so even Tiffany disagrees with you. And so does Dwain Deets.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
And I second that .....vigourously.



The problem is clear for "them".....they HAVE to derail the thread, or theyve failed in their "mission"...

Have a good sleep tricky???


So you agree with a guy who thinks that if you drive a car so that the rev counter hits the red line it immediately falls to bits.

No wonder 9/11 Truth is so stunningly successful.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DirekConek

Waiting for you to put together that airspeed data and match it up with Boeing specs and safety guidelines for these planes, and show us with hard numbers that these planes were all operating safely within their rated limits as they approached their targets. Thanks in advance.



I don't want to speak for Pteridine. He may have a different take on it. But I think the planes just may have been operating somewhat unsafely.

I mean, I don't know about you, but I think I can tell the pilots weren't hugely concerned about operational safety because of what happens just after the final recorded speed.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

If your cars redline is 10k rpm, do you really think its going to explode when it hits 10,0001 rpm? In fact you can probably hit 15k rpm for a short period of time before all hell breaks loose.


I like the way you start with "in fact" and then go straight to "probably".


Many years ago, my brother-in-law and I went out for a bit of street racing. We were both young and I had just bought a new car. It was in the early hours of the morning, with no traffic on the roads.

My brother-in-law would keep the accelerator pedal to the floor and then quickly tramp on the clutch and change up. Well, on the third or fourth race, he missed the change from 2nd to 3rd, and the very brief time that the engine over-revved, he bent a valve. I had to tow him home.

The fact that the "hijackers" were not concerned with their safety does not explain how they managed to fly the aircraft faster than they are physically capable of at that height.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Has anyone mentioned the fact that commertial airliners have built in governors that don't even allow the pilot to exceed certain G forces? They would have had to modify/override the governors to pull such maneuvers I think.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Also, has anyone tried measuring the speed of the jet from any videos? It's possible.

I think I'm going to try.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by V1g0r0u5
 

I agree,
they have not debunked anything but insulted the OP for bringing us this information. I have not seen any one of these debunkers bring one piece of credible evidence to disprove what Dwain Deets published in his report showing that it is flawed.
Not only are these people on pilots for 911 truth very credible in their research but they are experts in their own field, these people are not going to risk their reputation and hard work to present a pseudo report like NIST did in trying to fool the public. Pilots for 911 Truth does have an open forum where other professional pilots from around the world discuss these issues, if they feel there was an error in Dwain Deets report they would not have published it on their website to tarnish their credibility. It is obvious that some of these debunkers in here behave as if they are the experts on aeronautical navigation on Boeing aircraft in here, and probably never have set foot in a Boeing cockpit before.


[edit on 13-7-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by benoni
And I second that .....vigourously.



The problem is clear for "them".....they HAVE to derail the thread, or theyve failed in their "mission"...

Have a good sleep tricky???


So you agree with a guy who thinks that if you drive a car so that the rev counter hits the red line it immediately falls to bits.

No wonder 9/11 Truth is so stunningly successful.


I thought I was a bit harsh calling you an idiot, but thids post just confirms it.

You like to twist people's words to fit your own agenda. Can you post a link where somebody said that hitting the red line causes an engine to "immediately falls to bits"

I have provided an example from personal experience where exceeding the redline for just an instant caused expensive damage.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by V1g0r0u5
 

I agree,
they have not debunked anything but insulted the OP for bringing us this information. I have not seen any one of these debunkers bring one piece of credible evidence to disprove what Dwain Deets published in his report showing that it is flawed.
Not only are these people on pilots for 911 truth very credible in their research but they are experts in their own field, these people are not going to risk their reputation and hard work to present a pseudo report like NIST did in trying to fool the public. Pilots for 911 Truth does have an open forum where other professional pilots from around the world discuss these issues, if they feel there was an error in Dwain Deets report they would not have published it on their website to tarnish their credibility. It is obvious that some of these debunkers in here behave as if they are the experts on aeronautical navigation on Boeing 767 or 757 in here and probably never have set foot in a Boeing cockpit before.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by impressme]


But Dwain Deets disagrees with Ralph Kolstad. Which of these experts do you think is correct?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by V1g0r0u5

I thought I was a bit harsh calling you an idiot, but thids post just confirms it.

You like to twist people's words to fit your own agenda. Can you post a link where somebody said that hitting the red line causes an engine to "immediately falls to bits"


Okay, so it doesn't immediately fall to bits. Fine. Then why did you post it? What relevance does it have, other than as an analogy that shows that vehicles don't necessarily fail when pushed to the red line.

I mean, obviously it's a car, so the comparison is next to useless anyway, but I'll indulge you. You've inadvertently suggested that the plane wouldn't necessarily fail. Well done.


I have provided an example from personal experience where exceeding the redline for just an instant caused expensive damage.


Right. So cars do immediately fall to bits when they hit the red line? Which is it? Because if it's "sometimes they do" and "sometimes they don't" then that doesn't really help us much, does it?

And just FYI, I'm not sure the hijackers were that bothered about causing "expensive damage" to the plane. I have a vague feeling they thought they might not have to pick up the tab.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I have to admit that you are really good at what you do...
Purposefully twisting arguments here and there, pretending not to understand posts...

You must be one of them Super Trolls. I am not going to get into further discussions with you...what would be the point?


Yeah. God forbid you might actually have to account for your arguments with something a bit better thought out than a story about your brother's car. Just nod along to the Truth websites. Maybe even send Rob, sorry Tiffany, a cheque. You could get a hat or something.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

See? There you go again!
It's all black or white with you, isn't it..


Right. So cars do immediately fall to bits when they hit the red line? Which is it? Because if it's "sometimes they do" and "sometimes they don't" then that doesn't really help us much, does it?


The more you push something past it's safe operating limits, the more likely it is to fail. Your arguments are irrational.

As you would have it, because I offer an example of engine failure when operated briefly beyond the redline, all engines fail immediately when beyond the redline. There is no logic there, just word-twisting.

Now this really is my last response to you.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by V1g0r0u5
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

See? There you go again!
It's all black or white with you, isn't it..



It's precisely not black and white with me. I don't know, but I doubt - given what I've read - that planes automatically fall to pieces as soon as they hit the limit of their operational safety. Sometimes they might experience failure, sometimes they might not, depending on circumstance.

You've come blundering into this, calling me names, and firing out ridiculous analogies that, by your own admission, prove nothing beyond what I've just said. I'm not claiming that

"because [you] offer an example of engine failure when operated briefly beyond the redline, all engines fail immediately when beyond the redline."

I precisely don't think they do. And apparently you don't either. So well done, you've proved - what? What was the point of your post? That I'm an idiot? And yet you seem to agree with me - the planes could have operated beyond the limits of their operational safety envelope.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:09 AM
link   
the whole 9/11 is purely science fiction story. What airlines fly grey planes with a unidentified containers attached underneath? how is it possible that pentagon suffers only a minor damage and there is absolutely no video footage of anything (supposingly the best secured place in the world), the fourth plane falls down in a middle of field leaving a one small piece of the wreckage? Hello what are you retards? It is a complete bull#. You have not been attacked by anybody... Not Al-kaida not anybody else. It looks like an inside job from your own secret services. Generated only for the sole purpose of attacking iraq (the success that you achived there is close to zero). Why do people belive that terrorists would actually engage in such a complicated plots. I actually belive there is no more terrorists left in the world at all. If they were wouldn't it be much more simple to buy few rocket proppeled grenade launchers and at a given time and date they sit outside a fence of few of your nuclear plants, read few lines of koran and then fire at the target? I guarantte you that those plants are not designed to withstand that kind of damage and why not fire 5-6 missiles at each one? Wouldn't it create a much biggeer effect thatn your 2 #ty towers? In the 9/11 story nothing adds up. Not one fact fits the official storyline and in the meantime your president reads books to children which out right look too hard for him to pronounce... What is that smell? smells like bull#



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 





I am not sure if that is true or not. Since the main premise of this particular conspiracy is based upon faulty science,


Well, we disagree on that.




David Rostcheck? Who is this man? What made him an expert on demolitions? Did anyone one question this man's background? What makes his words so special?

Alex Jones? Where did he get his intelligence from? What makes his wisdom so special? When did he become an expert in planes, buildings, and physics?

Peter Meyer? What makes him so special? What type of foresight and knowledge does he have? What is his background in science, math, etc..?

Jared Israel? What makes him so special? What type of foresight and knowledge does he have? What is his background in science, math, etc..?


If those questions are directed at me, you should be aware that I have not used information from any of those people to come to my conclusions about 9/11. I don't really care what a radio talk show host who makes his living off of the topic of conspiracy theories has to say about 9/11. As for the others, I don't know who they are and it doesn't really matter to me.

Please don't tell me you're implying that those who believe in this conspiracy, yet lack a scientific background, must have formed their opinions based on conspiracy talk shows and YouTube videos? I never put those other names out there, so what is your point with respect to my post?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by hooper
Failure analysis. Lets see the calcs. Thank you.


Posted for the 7th time.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Do you not know how to use an EAS calculator?

I believe there are directions on the site linked in the footnotes.

Good luck.


Yeah, right. No more traffic for pft site. Post the failure analysis calcs here or just admit you have no clue what you are talking about.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by yarosh
 





In the 9/11 story nothing adds up. Not one fact fits the official storyline and in the meantime your president reads books to children which out right look too hard for him to pronounce... What is that smell? smells like bull#


Yeah, yarosh, it really is that simple. But there's people out there trying to fool Americans into believing it's much more complicated than it is. Sure there's evidence where complicated points must be addressed, but overall, it's quite simple, just as you say.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join