Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 44
127
<< 41  42  43   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
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...


mobius1974, she does believe your story, that's the problem.

You're like CIT's pentagon cop who absolutely supports the official story of the Pentagon incident and unequivocally contradicts it with his testamony, which he would bet his life on.

?!?!?!




posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Yet another anonymous poster giving their first hand story about 9/11. That and a buck will buy you a stale coffee.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Then what is the problem here? How many times can I say ..

I DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING LAID OUT TO US ON 911...
But for christs sake... This theory put out here .. Is dilusional and borderline INSANE!!!

Why are all of these questions going unanswered... Why if you copy and paste a good portion of her posts, do they pop up.. nearly verbatum.. On a truthers site.. She is not giving credit.. She is a fraud!!!

She is over looking logic to crow bar her theories.. This isn't open for debate to her...

Why is it.. if someone doesn't agree with one part of this.. They are automaticly "agents"!!!!

I can only look at that edited graph so many times.. I can only see those "credible" pilots name and qualifications so many times..

The pathetic part is ... She has posted the above mentioned garbage nearly as many times as we have asked the same questions..

I just fear she is going to bring her gravity challenged friends back into this argument.

Stop insulting and start answering questions.. Or just admit that you dont know and move on.. It is very frustrating to type out a questions and or facts and then have the OP simply ignore the entire post..

I have no choice but to believe the official story.... or at least a good deal of it when it comes to the planes.. ALl her side can do , is offer opinions or theories.. That is all.. Unless she is willing to get into a plane and test it.. all her theories are based on opinions.. NO facts!



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


And who are you talking to or about?
2nd line



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA



So.

Dodge it is.

Imagine that.

Looks like you cannot deny that the more complicated your story is, the more it appeals to truthers.

Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
They refuse to put their name to their claims as Deets, Capt Aimer, Capt Kolstad, Capt Latas et al have done...


Two questions here, Cap't Tiffany, if you could please ask of Muffy and Capt Buffy, Capt Heather, Capt Trixie, et al and get back to us with their answers:

1) Do they agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.

Question 1 is a claim by you "Rob Balsamo" made on his website. I am curious what your "experts" would say about a claim that as soon as an aircraft hits its design limits, it "breaks" (i.e. to smash, split, or divide into parts violently; reduce to pieces or fragments, to use a common definition of "break".)

It will, of course, "break" at some point, but it has been proven beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that many, many aircraft throughout history have exceeded their "design limits" and survived, some to even fly again.

Thus, it will be illuminating to hear their answers. Don't change the question, please.

Question 2 has to do simply with the size and thrust output of an attached power plant.

Simple questions. I look forward to your and your "colleagues" answers.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Look at all the trolls attacking one girl.

Then they expect her to answer every single question that they throw at her...savages.

I can't believe all the debunkers that are in here.They seem destined to attack her any way they can.

And stop saying that they are her claims because they're not.There are experts saying these things so if you want to attack someone..attack them.

I believe experts in the field over a couple of debunkers online who can't even provide their own experts to refute it.

You forget besides the speed factor that there are other elements involved like air,weight of passengers,adrenaline..all would have effect on controlling the plane..THEN you have the fact that none of the hijackers flew a 757 before!?!?!
Then you have all those experts saying it's not possible,so who do you debunkers think we are going to believe?...you?Some unknown online with no credentials to back up anything you say?Then you attack.harass,bully and even in a threatening way say things only a child would say like "if this site didn't have such strict rules I would have said more" or some crap like that.and why?So you could post some disgusting filth of an insult to make yourself feel better?All sites should have strict rules,kids have computers to you know?Don't you care?

Here's a professional pilot who flew the actual planes used on 9/11 and he says it's not possible.

www.youtube.com...

There are plenty of experts and pilots that are coming forward risking their careers for what they believe.Everyone knows that anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job and goes public about it is career suicide.

And good job BTW Tiffany.If this topic wasn't such a big deal the debunkers wouldn't be here.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
They refuse to put their name to their claims as Deets, Capt Aimer, Capt Kolstad, Capt Latas et al have done...


Two questions here, Cap't Tiffany, if you could please ask of Muffy and Capt Buffy, Capt Heather, Capt Trixie, et al and get back to us with their answers:

1) Do they agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.


trebor, why don't you go ask them yourself? From what I understand, you have about 10 different socks at P4T forum.

But since it appears you are reluctant, please post the source links so we can read it in context. If experience with you is any indication, you are cherry picking words and taking statements out of context in order to fit your bias. Given the quotation marks around "design limits", I'd bet this is the case here as well.


Question 1 is a claim by you "Rob Balsamo" made on his website.


I wonder why the mods continue to let you people get away with your accusations when you already been warned?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Running away from your

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

I see. Well done. Par for your course when faced with difficult questions, especially ones taken from your own words. It would never stand up, in any event, and I would repudiate it too, if I were you.

Get away with what? They know full well who you are - of that there's no doubt. All I had to do is point out how many posts you referenced PfT (something 20 times in your first 25 posts), many times simply to plug your website (a violation of the terms of usage, btw). Not to mention the use of the exact same verbiage you have used on many posts as Rob Balsamo ("The list grows") in other forums. They know.

Why do they let you stay is the big question. Entertainment value, most likely, since it has been proven pages ago that:

a) aircraft do indeed have structural design limits.

b) aircraft have exceeded those structural design limits for whatever reason all throughout aviation history and in many cases have survived.

c) the 9/11 aircraft in question, flown by suicidal jihadist hijackers with absolutely no regard for your precious airspeed and structural limitations, were flown, probably beyond their design specifications yet survived until impact

Now....will you get your "experts" to answer those questions? Or will you continue to run away? Here they are again in case you forgot:

1) Do they agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.



[edit on 17-7-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
trebor, anytime you wish to post source links, let us know.

So far, all we have is your word, and if you haven't noticed, your credibility isn't worth much around here, considering you love to cherry pick and quote out of context. The odd's of my bet are leaning more and more in my favor each time you refuse to post source links.

I'm also puzzled why you would spend your Friday nights, (and almost every day of the week), discussing a topic that you feel has no merit, seemingly obsessed with a man you think is a kook.

trebor, anytime you wish to show us a positively identified standard 767 that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots (or any aircraft for that matter) and remained under control by a pilot with zero time in type, please let us know. So far, you have failed.

Finally, since you continue to violate warnings made by the mods, let me repeat and bold them for you.


Originally posted by seagull
This is going to be said once, and once only...

The topic of the thread is:

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

Yep. Just checked, it still is. It is not conjecturing upon who might be who, or calling each other whatever names you think you can get away with...

Discuss the topic at hand.


www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 17-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Yep my suspicions were correct...this Tiffany spent "her" Friday night online discussing 911 conspiracies...instead of hitting the bar in her hot outfit...post a new picture of you holding an ATS picture



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
Look at all the trolls attacking one girl.

Then they expect her to answer every single question that they throw at her...savages.


Good job you're here to protect "her".

Interesting also that you think that pointing out the massive inconsistencies in P4T's argument is "trolling". This amounts to you not liking your preconceptions challenged, I suppose.

If your experts suggest that aircraft immediately break up when they exceed their safe operating limit, and this is subsequently proven to be untrue, how much trust do you continue to place in them? And do you continue to venerate them simply because they confirm your bias?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



The below was taken from a Normal Category aircraft


No - "below" was the only thing you could find on the internet when you googled "vg diagram". Which tells me for all your bluster about being and having access to all these alleged high-powered aviation experts the only thing you have access to is what you can google from the net. Pretty sad, expert. Why don't you scan and post the specific Vg diagram for the craft we are talking about, with all your pilots and NASA scientist this should only take a few seconds. I'll be waiting.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
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]


I couldn't let this one pass. Let me hit the highlights. It wasn't a barrel rol. It was an aileron roll. Different sorts of rolls are often confused. The diffrent kinds are: "slow roll" in which the aircraft maintains a level flight path and constant heading, rolling symettrically about the longitudinal axis, momentarily hitting -1.0 g at the inverted point;"snap (or flick for the europeans) roll" in which the aircraft enters an accelerated stall and autorotates about the longitudinal axis in a stalled condition with positive gs all the way around; an "aileron roll" in which full aileron is used to roll around the axis, ending up, if done correctly, on the same approximate heading, and; a "barrel roll" which is a combination looping and rolling maneuver begun with a hefty pull as if entering a loop. Then aileron is fed in resulting in the aircraft coming back to level 90 degrees from the entry heading.Tex did an aileron roll and he was fired on the spot. And rehired at some point later. And if done by an experienced and skilled pilot, an aileron roll can be accomplished well within the design load limits of a Part 25 aircraft. If you look at the Type Certificate Data Sheet for the Boeing 367-80 (the 707 and its variants, including the 720, C-135, KC 135, etc) you will note that the design load limits, with 0 flaps and gear up, are +2.5 and -1.0. An aileron roll can be accomplished with as little as 1.5 positive (the initial pull for antry) and no negative loading. It will lighten to about +0.5 over the top but that's about it. A 727 rolls very nicely from about 250 knots. You do have to be careful to keep positive g loading all the way around or you can poof an engine from fuel unporting. But below about 14,000' it will airstart right back up. Another consideration with the 72 is that you don't want too much fuel in the wings. All that weight out away from the longitudinal axis creates a rolling moment that makes it difficult to precisely stop.
And when you say "that plane" exceeded mach 1, I looked up the accident/incident reports and SDRs for the N number and found no prior records. When and where and in what circumstances did N612UA do this? Why did you say "that plane?"
Finally, your use of the term "power dive" indicated, at least to me, a gross lack of familiarity with jet air carrier aircraft operations. You always descend with power, particularly at lower altitudes.If you don't you risk ending up like UA 389 near ORD, or AA383, near CVG, or UA 227, near SLC. A jet engine isn't like your car. You don't "punch it" and go. You move the thrust levers (OK, gas pedal) forward, and after what seems like an eternity, it responds by spooling up. And, Top Gun movie notwithstanding, you don't just jam them forward or you're likely to hear all sorts of disconcerting noises from just outside your _ So, you throw junk out into the airstream, like wheels and flaps and slots and slats and spoilers, stick the nose up like a hamster in heat, and keep the motors turning as much as you can to maintain approach or descent speed. It's a lot easier and quicker to go from 80% to full power than from flight idle. in. Oh, and speaking of flight idle, look up "core lock". If you do, you may never again get on a CRJ . That's why I love the Speys on my G-IIB. Spool up time is much better than the GEs and no core lock issues.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Thanks for the important information Tiffany...

Wow...I didn't realise the membership of P4T consisted of so many highly qualified and respectable professionals...

Who's opinion am I more likely to trust...a group of highly experienced aviation experts with collectively tens of thousands of hours of on-the-job first hand knowledge?...or a pack of wannabe debunker internet posters who add nothing to the discussion but mockery, derailment, and bullying?

S&F for your gutsy, cool, eloquent, and informed responses in the face of multiple rabid troll attacks.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Due to a continuation of off topic postings, this thread is, for the time being, closed. Pending a staff discussion of how to proceed with it.






top topics



 
127
<< 41  42  43   >>

log in

join