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

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
The wing spar of the 737 was beefed up above original design specs when it was discovered that the rear spar (the one that carries compression loads during high speed operations) buckled at a speed of only 34% above "normal" (not maximum but normal) speed. And the fuselage of a 737 shares cross sections with the 727, which was, for a long time, the fastest airliner in American skies (except the Concorde). The 737 was designed (or over designed) as a short haul, high reliability, high cycle utility airborne bus. And it has turned out to be just that. I'm not going to comment on the hydraulic system or rudder actuators, though. With respect to "tolerance limits" you mentioned, except for design g load limits, there are none. At 1 knot above Mmo or Vmo, you become an experimental test pilot. Without company benefits like life insurance.

Exactly, well said 4nsicphd.

It appears those who blindly support the govt story still don't understand the differences of a 737 to a 767 and the difference in speeds reported above Max operating.

Not surprising as it appears they still cannot grasp the fact (after 40 some odd pages) that a V-G diagram can be constructed if the V speeds are known. Any student pilot can do it for any aircraft. Clearly there is not one pilot among them. Not surprised as they have shown time and time again they blindly support the govt story while making excuses for such excessive speeds. They refuse to put their name to their claims as Deets, Capt Aimer, Capt Kolstad, Capt Latas et al have done, they think the speeds are easily achieved, but none are willing to try it themselves at any altitude. They deceptively try to get lurkers to look the other way, too bad for them, it's not working. You, Jetstream, CaptChaos and a few others are a great example of why Pilots For 9/11 Truth continue their work. Real pilots understand the red flags with the govt story when pointed out.

One if them even claims to have witnessed the flight path at the Pentagon (Mobius) and clearly describes a flight path that is fatal to the govt story. He so blindly supports the govt story, that he says he doesn't even care of the conflict and the implications of what he claims to have seen. Wow.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by prestel
reply to post by trebor451

 

Did anyone successfully contradict that a commercial jet cannot fly 500mph at sea-level?

No, they all refuse to try it themselves and when they did try to compare apples to apples, all they had were molded oranges inside a house of cards.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by weedwhacker

You are right. The only NTSB report I have had more than a cursory glance at is the one related to EA 990.

We are kind of off topic here, veering more into operational details concerning the hijacking itself rather than the intent of the thread from the OP's point of view.

As a layperson, my suspicions are aroused by a tale of amateurs controlling a complex instrument and then doing things that are normally beyond its specifications. When you make operating the instrument sound even more complex than I thought it was, my suspicions don't go away.

If I were undertaking an operation such as the inflight take over of an aircraft with the intention of crashing it somewhere important, and working with amateur pilots, I wouldn't be focused on any of the refinements of flying.

I could go into more detail about this, but I am speaking from the perspective of a person who has been in dodgy situations before, surrounded by people who don't like you. It's a real ballet. Clarity and simplicity are key.

All I'm saying is that the thing as it went down looks suspicious and the OP's posts increase the suspicion for me.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Mobius1974
Lets play dodge the question again

Lets say that very powerful people modified or switched the type of planes used that day. Why did they do that? So the planes could handle the stress of over the limits manuvers??

So their plan included these high risk manuvers?? Really? They told the terrorist, " I want you to pull off a near impossible manuver before hitting the target.. really?

That makes sense to whom? If we assume the planes were modified, we have to assume it was for a reason.

Extrapolate a little.

Rob, uhhh, I mean Tiffany, has posted opinions from pffffft that 11's speed was NOT excessive. And yet the towers came down.

So what would be the purpose, as you ask, of having to modify just one plane/falsify the radar data/instruct NTSB to lie/whatever else pffffft can dream up?

There's zero reason for it, and it's obvious to any honest and rational person.

If the "NWO" (inset spooky music here) , after their pre-mission study determines that plane impacts and resulting fire would be unable to bring down the buildings (since they are the NWO and would of course have access to all the structural docs), then it would be a trivial task for them to replace the structural docs/instruct their secret plant at NIST to fudge the analysis/do whatever needs to be done.

To any rational person, it is readily obvious that the easiest way to get your new Pearl Harbor is to AVOID dealing with anything physical, and stick to documentation/fouling up computer runs with your sooper secret NWO computer altering decoder ring.

IOW, Keep It Simple, Stupid,

But this isn't how the truther mind works, and it's simple to explain why. To them, the more complicated it is, the more mysterious and exciting it becomes. Excitement leads to adrenalin>endorphin release in the brain. They get addicted to it. And like any addict, as the resistance levels rise with use, more and more of the drug (endorphins) must be used. Which leads to even more outlandish and complicated schemes, which obviously results in stronger challenges and outrage from us on the rational side, which leads to more excitement, which leads to more resistance...... and the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

Truther are nothing but adrenalin junkies.

And at the pentagon the "plane" was only a few feet off the ground.


The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washington D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept - despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country.

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by prestel
reply to post by trebor451

 

Did anyone successfully contradict that a commercial jet cannot fly 500mph at sea-level?

No, they all refuse to try it themselves and when they did try to compare apples to apples, all they had were molded oranges inside a house of cards.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Vg Diagram


The flight operating strength of an airplane is presented on a graph whose horizontal scale [should be vertical scale -Ed.] is based on load factor (Fig. 17-19) [should be Fig. 17-50 - Ed.]. The diagram is called a V/g diagram - velocity versus "g" loads or load factor. Each airplane has its own V/g diagram which is valid at a certain weight and altitude.

The lines of maximum lift capability (curved lines) are the first items of importance on the V/g diagram. The subject airplane in the illustration is capable of developing no more than one positive "g" at 62 mph, the wing level stall speed of the airplane. Since the maximum load factor varies with the square of the airspeed, the maximum positive lift capability of this airplane is 2 "g" at 92 mph, 3 "g" at 112 mph, 4.4 "g" at 137 mph etc. Any load factor above this line is unavailable aerodynamically; i.e., the subject airplane cannot fly above the line of maximum lift capability (it will stall). Essentially the same situation exists for negative lift flight with the exception that the speed necessary to produce a given negative load factor is higher than that to produce the same positive load factor.

If the subject airplane is flown at a positive load factor greater than the positive limit load factor of 4.4, structural damage will be possible. When the airplane is operated in this region, objectionable permanent deformation of the primary structure may take place and a high rate of fatigue damage is incurred. Operation above the limit load factor must be avoided in normal operation.

There are two other points of importance on the V/g diagram. Point A is the intersection of the positive limit load factor and the line of maximum positive lift capability. The airspeed at this point is the minimum airspeed at which the limit load can be developed aerodynamically. Any airspeed greater than point A provides a positive lift capability sufficient to damage the airplane; any airspeed less than point A does NOT provide positive lift capability sufficient to cause damage from excessive flight loads. The usual term given to the speed at point A is the "maneuvering speed," since consideration of subsonic aerodynamics would predict minimum usable turn radius to occur at this condition. The maneuver speed is a valuable reference point since an airplane operating below this point cannot produce a damaging positive flight load. Any combination of maneuver and gust cannot create damage due to excess airload when the airplane is below the maneuver speed.

Point B is the intersection of the negative limit load factor and line of maximum negative lift capability. Any airspeed greater than point B provides a negative lift capability sufficient to damage the airplane; any airspeed less than point B does not provide negative lift capability sufficient to damage the airplane from excessive flight loads.

The limit airspeed (or redline speed) is a design reference point for the airplane - the subject airplane is limited to 225 mph. If flight is attempted beyond the limit airspeed structural damage or structural failure may result from a variety of phenomena.
Thus, the airplane in flight is limited to a regime of airspeeds and g's which do not exceed the limit (or redline) speed, do not exceed the limit load factor, and cannot exceed the maximum lift capability. The airplane must be operated within this "envelope" to prevent structural damage and ensure that the anticipated service lift of the airplane is obtained. The pilot must appreciate the V/g diagram as describing the allowable combination of airspeeds and load factors for safe operation. Any maneuver, gust, or gust plus maneuver outside the structural envelope can cause structural damage and effectively shorten the service life of the airplane.

FAATest.com - Aviation Library
Dauntless Software hosts and maintains this library as a service to pilots and aspiring pilots worldwide. Click here for ways to show your appreciation for this service. While much of this material comes from the FAA, parts of it are (c) Dauntless Software, all rights reserved. Webmasters: please do not link directly to individual books in this library--rather, please link to our main web page at www.dauntless-soft.com or www.faatest.com. Thanks!

Emphasis mine.

Please note the reference to the fact that there is a Vg diagram for EVERY plane, not one Vg digram wherein you just input the velocity and shazammm! instant universally applicable Vg diagram.

Also, please note that is Vg digram - Not V-G diagram.

Originally posted by hooper
Vg Diagram


The flight operating strength of an airplane is presented on a graph whose horizontal scale [should be vertical scale -Ed.] is based on load factor (Fig. 17-19) [should be Fig. 17-50 - Ed.]. The diagram is called a V/g diagram - velocity versus "g" loads or load factor. Each airplane has its own V/g diagram which is valid at a certain weight and altitude.

Very good, now you're learning.

Vmo at 360 is set for low altitude, high weight.

Move the whole chart to the left for less weight and higher altitude.



You would know this if you watched the video presentation I linked several times for you from APS Training, an aerobatic flight school. Need the link again?

Also, please note that is Vg digram - Not V-G diagram.

Tell that to Bradley C. Hood, Fighter Formation Qualification Program.



www.warbirddepot.com...


hooper, we don't expect you to understand considering you think you have to be in orbit to see the WTC from Albany and think you can exceed aircraft limitation by any speed without penalty. LMAO!


[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Rob, uhhh, I mean Tiffany,

Click here first Joey.
www.abovetopsecret.com...




Joey, can you please tell us how Mobius could have seen the aircraft at his 2 oclock position if he were in between in the Pentagon and Crystal city and the govt claims this is the aircraft flight path?



Mobius seems to avoid this question. I expect you will as well.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Very good, now you're learning.

Too bad you cannot seem to follow suit.

See those pretty little curved lines on the little diagram you plagarized? They have specific meaning and are unique to each aircraft type. Simply doing a little cut, paste and erase and replace doesn't mean squat. You simply changed the speed distribution on the x-axis. This is not "inputting" doodley squat. This is touching up the x-rays. The r is specific to each aircraft.

Please tell me that you don't fly planes, for the sake of all in the air and on the ground.

LMAO.

Originally posted by hooper
See those pretty little curved lines on the little diagram you plagarized? They have specific meaning and are unique to each aircraft type

Actually, they are unique to aircraft Category.

Transport Category aircraft have +2.5 G and -1.0 G limits. So, decrease the scale on the y-axis to 2.5 and -1.0 G.

The below was taken from a Normal Category aircraft which is +4.4 G and -2.5. I didn't amend the y-axis as clearly you were already confused enough and as you can see, G load doesn't mean squat above 420 knots. The aircraft suffers structural failure at any G load in the red zone to the right.

Remember hooper, use the horizontal scroll bar on the bottom. Follow it all the way to the right, what does it say above 420 at 1G?



That's right hooper, it says "Structural Failure".

EA990 corroborates this as it suffered structural failure at 425.

But hey, at least your trying to learn the concepts now. It only took you what, 43 pages? Good for you hooper!

But you still have a lot more to learn. Especially the fact that you don't need to be in orbit to see the WTC from Albany.

LMAO!


[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Joey, can you please tell us how Mobius could have seen the aircraft at his 2 oclock position if he were in between in the Pentagon and Crystal city and the govt claims this is the aircraft flight path?

Tiffany,sweetheart, can you tell us if John Lear still believes in holograms and/or why he espoused that in the first place, since he is one of your star pilots?

Or, would you rather just admit that no matter what, you will just dodge the scenario I set out cuz it's too logical and not exciting enough to admit that IF the NWO if all powerful and control nearly every agency, there is zero need to fake/modify any physical entity as pffffft ascribes to.

It's because it isn't outlandish enough, therefore not providing any potential converts into your own particular world of lunacy and delusions. Right?

BTW, ya got any more hot pix of yurself?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Tiffany,sweetheart, can you tell us if John Lear still believes in holograms and/or why he espoused that in the first place, since he is one of your star pilots?

Why don't you ask John Lear?

As for being a "star" pilot of P4T. I don't see him in any of the credits on any of their presentations. He is just listed as a member in the order which they joined.

These are just some of the pilot who have their names directly credited for their analysis.

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

Yes, you and your herd try to smear them too, but you're not very successful.

As for John Lear, he has 19,000 flight time, helped test and design a jet which is a household name, has many awards and records in aviation, and holds every certificate issued by the FAA.

Just what are your accomplishments in aviation? Do you have any accomplishments in anything besides trying to smear the good pilots of P4T on ATS forum?

But it is clear why you and Mobius have evaded these questions for more than 10 pages on THIS thread.

Again, can you please tell us how Mobius could have seen the aircraft at his 2 oclock position if he were in between in the Pentagon and Crystal city and the govt claims this is the aircraft flight path?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

I wonder how many airplanes are rated to fly on one wing? Was the F-15 ever rated to fly on one wing, with the other one ripped off?



But I guess any more examples of aircraft operating outside of their design specs or limits is pointless as "Tiffany" and her cheerleading squad brush them away as if they are not relevant. I dunno, in this case an F-15 surviving with one wing is pretty spectacular. I'm pretty sure the folks at McDonnell Douglas didnt see something like this happening, and having the aircraft survive.

Aw heck, a few more.
A B-17 with its tail nearly severed off:


Flew 90 minutes back to safety and landed. Broke in half after landing. I'll bet that aircraft wasnt rated to fly with its tail nearly severed.

Here is a nother one that had a flak round detonate inside.


I'm pretty sure the designers didnt expect to see things like these ocurring and having the aircraft safely make it back. But they did. And I'm sure the structures dealt with some very harsh stresses. Just goes to show how aircraft can survive incidents when by all accounts it should have never made it.

As for the 767s that impacted the WTCs, well, they only barely scratched across the "limits" in their descent at high speed into the WTC. "Tiffany" makes it sound as if the aircraft were doing this for a very long time, when in fact it was a couple minutes, tops.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Was this before its initial huge plunge, or after its plunge where the aircraft nearly reached Mach 1 in its insane dive? You do recall that part? Where after the near Mach 1 dive, it managed to regain control, climb again and then ended up in another descent where it finally did lose structural integrity? Did you forget those initial parts?

If you are going to try to make a point, be sure to state ALL the facts, and not a part of them. Or were you purposly leaving out those facts in the hopes no one would notice and so you can have some fake ammunition to fight with?

Originally posted by GenRadek
I wonder how many airplanes are rated to fly on one wing? Was the F-15 ever rated to fly on one wing, with the other one ripped off?

Are you saying a 767 could fly with one wing with al-Shehhi at the controls? A person who was a worse pilot than Hani Hanjour (according to the 911 Commission Report) who couldn't control a 172?

Keep reaching GenRedek.

Aw heck, a few more.
A B-17 with its tail nearly severed off:


Flew 90 minutes back to safety and landed. Broke in half after landing. I'll bet that aircraft wasnt rated to fly with its tail nearly severed.

Here is a nother one that had a flak round detonate inside.

All of which are not a 767 and did not have a pilot at the controls who couldn't control a 172, nor zero time in type.

I'm pretty sure the designers didnt expect to see things like these ocurring

Certainly they didn't design these warbirds to go into war against Me-109's and Zero's,, they designed them for passenger travel and comfort over the Continental US, right?



Thank you GenRedek, I bet 4nsicphd will get a few good laughs from your comparisons as I did.

Hey, while you're at it, why not post this?

As for the 767s that impacted the WTCs, well, they only barely scratched across the "limits" in their descent at high speed into the WTC. "Tiffany" makes it sound as if the aircraft were doing this for a very long time, when in fact it was a couple minutes, tops.

Very good, You should tell that to the rest of your herd who claim it was only a "few seconds".

GenRedek, it appears you think 150 over Vmo is easy to perform and maintain control in a Transport Category aircraft.

Are you willing to sit in the Cabin of an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by more than 150 knots? You don't even have to stay there for any amount of time, just hit the number and decelerate. Your herd avoids this question like the plague, especially weedwhacker, perhaps you will answer? Are you willing to put your name on your claims as does Deets?

[edit on 16-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by GenRadek

Was this before its initial huge plunge, or after its plunge where the aircraft nearly reached Mach 1 in its insane dive? You do recall that part? Where after the near Mach 1 dive, it managed to regain control, climb again and then ended up in another descent where it finally did lose structural integrity? Did you forget those initial parts?

Oh that''s right, you're the guy who claimed the aircraft didn't break up in it's most "catastrophic dive", but in a less catastrophic dive.

LMAO!


"Near Mach 1" doesn't mean squat as the EAS speed takes compressibility into consideration.

It broke up because it hit thicker air. This was explained to you ad naseum GenRedek, pay attention.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Again, can you please tell us how Mobius could have seen the aircraft at his 2 oclock position if he were in between in the Pentagon and Crystal city and the govt claims this is the aircraft flight path?

You clearly didn't get it.

I have no more interest in discussing what some dude saw any more than you have any interest in discussing John's holograms.

That was that whooshing sound.

Now, would you care to discuss exactly WHY the NWO would need to involve folks to modify aircraft/involve folks at the NTSB to lie/involve news folks to supply altered tape/involve every private person that srecorded the event and put it on youtube to lie/involve whoever else you need to finish your delusional ideas, when it would be much simpler to do the KISS thing that I suggested?

Go ahead and admit it, if only to yourself. It's more outlandish and gets the adrenalin pumped up better, don't it?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


So basically what you are saying is that it does not matter that many other planes have been in far worse situations where the entire structural integrity is on the brink of failure, and yet the planes managed to survive, because they are not 767s. As if one instance of a 767 approaching 500mph in a power dive is enough for total failure.

Even the Aloha flight's damage probably did have its limits tested. But no, to you that is no comparison to a plane that accelerated in a dive from 28,000ft to 1,000ft in about 4 minutes, with a final impacting speed of about 500mph+, as if that is somehow much worse than a missing wing, a hole blown through the fuselage, a good 1/3 of the top of the fuselage ripped off, or tail nearly severed.

Are you aware that Flight 175 was accelerating and descending? i mean seriously its as if you cannot comprehend that basic fact that a 767 can do a power dive. Sure its not safe, but geeze I'm pretty sure the terrorists had safety dead last in their minds. Its been shown before that aircraft can and DID aproach and break the Mach 1 barrier and survived with some damage, and managed to land.

And again you ignore, that NO SANE PILOT WOULD EVER FLY THEIR AIRPLANE LIKE THE TERRORISTS. Your "challenge" is pointless and a strawman since you purposely ignore the fact that there is a difference between a suicidal/homicidal hijacking terrorist and a competant, straight thinking experienced pilot. I sure as hell woudlnt want to fly like the maniac in a 767, but thats because I am not some suicidal terrorist bent on death and destruction.

Would you want to do a barrel roll in a passenger jet? What competant pilot would? Well this guy did it in a 707:
Tex Johnston:



how many instances after this were passenger planes put into barrel rolls on purpose? Was the 707 rated for this? It survived didnt it?

[edit on 7/16/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You clearly didn't get it.

I have no more interest in discussing what some dude saw any more than you have any interest in discussing John's holograms.

So you agree it's impossible for Mobius to have seen what he claims if the NTSB flight path is correct, or...

.... the govt story is bogus, if the flight path Mobius saw and corroborated by many others is true.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, would you care to discuss exactly WHY the NWO would need to involve folks to modify aircraft/involve folks at the NTSB to lie/involve news folks to supply altered tape/involve every private person that srecorded the event and put it on youtube to lie/involve whoever else you need to finish your delusional ideas, when it would be much simpler to do the KISS thing that I suggested?

Click Here
(Please click it this time)

Joey, what we do know is that the govt story doesn't add up and more and more experts are throwing up their BS flags when they research deeper into the details.

You on the other hand continue your hobby smearing each new one that speaks out -- from your little corner on ATS and perhaps JREF. Your tactics are not working. Get a new hobby.

really? you still have not answered one single question that I have asked.. The only questions you answer are questions that fit in your comfort zone.

You are shady..... You are spitting out credentials and answers .. that when googled.. Are straight from other peoples work.

You keep reverting back to my story... If you do not believe it.. Call me a liar and move on.. I didnt tell my story to gain a following ..nor do I give 2 flips if you believe me...I did not make a mental line between crystal city and the pentagon and say "this is exactly where i was... Mentally I dont think there is even 6 or 7 miles between Crystal city and the pentagon... I picture it as 2 or 3.. But it has been 7 years since I lived down there... I am done explaining this to you..

I also care equally as much about it aligning with the official story OR YOURS...

You say lots of people have same story... have their stories made a difference? You are very thick headed... Dilusional at times!

I knew this girl named Tiffany once.. We nicknamed her Mr. Ed.. Her last name was Edwards and she always called people Mr.. .. I would feel much more comfortable if I could call you Mr. Ed.. Is that ok with you? My name is Shaun.. Feel free to use it.

Ok so Mr. Ed.... Why the long face? Are you planning on answering any of the questions, that do not have a truther forum answer, that you can copy and paste?

Why would they muck up the plan to modify the planes?? Why didnt they add... nvm I was going to ask again.. It is painfully aparent that your only knowledge is from other people... if they havent answered my question, in the past.. You are obviously not going to be able to copy and paste my answer now.

When backed into a corner like this.. this is normally where you start insulting and or critiquing spelling and posts... Just answer the OTHER questions..

If I were you.. I would go back to your handlers at the truther sites and explain that you need answers to new questions.. I am sure the people that you repetedly use as your sources are much better equiped to answer these questions.



[edit on 16-7-2010 by Mobius1974]