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.
Originally posted by CaptChaos
I know several commercial airline pilots as well. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM agrees it was impossible. They're sort of unwilling to go on record as such and then lose their cushy jobs just so that...............NOTHING will change. Are any of you willing to wreck your careers over this issue? I doubt it.
Originally posted by CaptChaos
Wow, this is really bizarre. NO ONE in the world is as stupid in real life as these three bozos are pretending to be. I guess there are people that stupid but they probably wouldn't be able to figure out how to turn on the computer.
NO ONE is saying the planes will start to break up at one knot over 420. However, 90 kts above is a different story. It is NOT like exceeding the speed limit in your car, nor is it like redlining the engine. To drag out the car analogy, it's more like taking your car with the alleged top speed of 130 and somehow getting it to hit 230 mph. And for that matter, I'm sure you are as inept as 99 percent of drivers on the road are, and wouldn't be able to keep it on the road at 100, let alone 200.
Within days after this scam happened, I remember there were a bunch of "top gun" real fighter pilots who went on the record saying only a pilot of their caliber would MAYBE be able to fly the plane the way these guys did. Most of them doubted if they themselves, pretty much the best pilots in the world, would have been able to make a 767 do that, not even counting getting it up to those speeds, but just to pull the type of high G turns that they did.
These diagrams of operating parameters are not MADE UP. Where is that coming from? They are from Boeing, you know, the guys who BUILT THE PLANES. Do you think they just guess at the numbers? What if they didn't know what would happen at 100 kts? Do you think they would just build the planes and see what happened? Come on. These numbers are calculated with tons of model testing, computer modeling, and wind tunnel tests.
It's true, they NEVER will build a 100 million dollar airplane first, and then get a test pilot to suicide test it until the wings tear off. You wanna volunteer to do that to prove your moronic points?
I happen to know SEVERAL people who lost family members in the WTC that day. ALL of them think the OS is complete bull. My brother watched the entire second plane striking, people leaping from the windows, and all the rest from the roof of his office four blocks away. HE doesn't believe the OS. His wife was IN one of the other WTC buildings during the whole thing. They kept all of them captive in there until 530 pm that day so they could not see what was going on and then be live eyewitnesses to the whole charade. We didn't know if she was dead or alive ALL DAY LONG. Why would they do that? SHE does not believe the OS either. Are any of you people ACTUAL EYEWITNESSES? I don't think so....
I know several commercial airline pilots as well. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM agrees it was impossible. They're sort of unwilling to go on record as such and then lose their cushy jobs just so that...............NOTHING will change. Are any of you willing to wreck your careers over this issue? I doubt it.
[edit on 13-7-2010 by CaptChaos]
These three freaks here trying to "debunk" this just CANNOT be this dumb in reality. So why would they be bothering with this thread, onto the second day now? Don't they have anything better to do, like a job? Or is THIS THEIR JOB?
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
And yet the P-51 has a faster rated dive speed than the 767.
Don't let that one bake your noodle too much.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
...it won't bake my noodle in the slightest.
The only ones getting their noodles baked (or re-baked?) are truthers over the sheer lunacy of comparing a WW2 straight wing fighter plane, designed before compressibility was understood, to a modern jet plane when they were.
o what WW2 fighter plane do you propose to explain the fact that there has been an instance where a 747 exceeded Mach 1 and 5G's, recovered from the dive, and was returned to service?
How can that be? How can a plane so severely exceed its safety zone and still be flyable?
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The 747 is not a 767. The 747 is a faster airplane than the 767. The 747 in this accident was also an "SP". Do you know what the SP stands for? Probably not. Here's a hint, it is a modified version of the 747 for higher performance and faster speed. The 747SP cruises, yes CRUISES above the Max operating of a 767.
Do you know what this means? Clearly you don't. Let me explain.
The 747 is designed to handle higher speeds than the 767. The 747SP is designed to handle higher speeds than the 747.
Yet, this 747SP also suffered "major structural damage".
Although the airplane suffered major structural damage during the upset, descent, and subsequent recovery, only two persons among the 274 passengers and crew on board were injured seriously.
Source - aviation-safety.net...
It is only because of the great skill of the Captain that he was able to get it on the ground safely, with an airplane missing pieces.
Originally posted by triplescorpio
so that wasnt a passenger plane i saw hit the tower that day ??
guess me and several other million witnesses must be dellusional ??
Originally posted by triplescorpio
if someone has any real evidence i would say bring it to the attention of your local officials or give larry king a call real proof of this being more then a horrible act of fear and inhumanity would be monumental and certainly jumped on by any media source... RIGHT?
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
So what WW2 fighter plane do you propose to explain the fact that there has been an instance where a 747 exceeded Mach 1 and 5G's, recovered from the dive, and was returned to service?
How can that be? How can a plane so severely exceed its safety zone and still be flyable?
Seems you missed my reply on the bottom of the last page.
Here is it again.
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Originally posted by GenRadek
Are you aware that the human body can withstand 4-5Gs before G-LOC? Also "Tiff" did you know that roller coasters can easily cause between 3.5Gs and 6.3Gs?
Depends on the human body. According to the F-22 Accident report I sourced, A-LOC onset happens between 2-3 G. I suppose you think your Hijackers were wearing G Suits?
The physiology of g-forces is way more complicated than that. The effects depend on a.)rate of onset; b)amount of load); c) duration; d) tolerance of the subject; e) physical status of the subject.
I fly competition aerobatics in a Sukhoi 31 and can, at the end of a season when tolerance is high, tolerate rapid onset short duration loads of +10 (multiple inside snap roll)to -9(outside snap on a vertical down line. But at the beginning of the season if dehydrated, a long 5 g pull at high speed from inverted horizontal to upright can start tunnel vision symptoms, the first sign of impending g-lock. And a g suit doesn't help much. It gives you an extra g or so of tolerance. The reclined seat in the Sukhoi helps much more by effectively reducing the heart-brain vertical distance. I have G-lokked in the centrifuge back in my F-4 days. It's really weird. Vision goes tunnel, then hearing goes, then the lights go out. Even after lessening the load, the lights come on but nobody's home for quite some time. Full recovery from sightless, silenced addleness can take 30 seconds or more.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Case in point, look at JoeyCanoli above twisting in the wind claiming Rob Balsamo as homeless.
But you DID IN FACT post using Tino's screen name, yes?
And deny it?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why aren't you comparing this to another WW2 fighter to explain?
Surely not because you're comparing apples to oranges?
Where's the chart for the 747?
Let's see where its safety zones are.....
Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
Hi, I am going to debunk this information.
Your “expert source” said that it was a Boeing 767-200 that hit the south tower, it was in fact a 767-222 there is his first mistakes in any case it does not matter because his speeds are wrong. According to him a Boeing 767 has a “maximum operating velocity of 360 knots” That’s about 414.3 MPH. This is wrong because a Boeing 767 has a maximum cursing speed of 540 MPH it is reasonable to assume that the dive speed is greater and that it would be possible to achieve a dive speed of 586MPH (510 knots).
Source
aviation-safety.net...
www.boeing.com...
Originally posted by 4nsicphd
The physiology of g-forces is way more complicated than that. The effects depend on a.)rate of onset; b)amount of load); c) duration; d) tolerance of the subject; e) physical status of the subject.
I fly competition aerobatics in a Sukhoi 31 and can, at the end of a season when tolerance is high, tolerate rapid onset short duration loads of +10 (multiple inside snap roll)to -9(outside snap on a vertical down line. But at the beginning of the season if dehydrated, a long 5 g pull at high speed from inverted horizontal to upright can start tunnel vision symptoms, the first sign of impending g-lock. And a g suit doesn't help much. It gives you an extra g or so of tolerance. The reclined seat in the Sukhoi helps much more by effectively reducing the heart-brain vertical distance. I have G-lokked in the centrifuge back in my F-4 days. It's really weird. Vision goes tunnel, then hearing goes, then the lights go out. Even after lessening the load, the lights come on but nobody's home for quite some time. Full recovery from sightless, silenced addleness can take 30 seconds or more.