"If a pilot says the planes are near impossible to manuever at these speeds doesn't have a clue what they are saying yet a hijacker that could barely fly a small plane is going to be able to do what experienced pilots aren't able to do."

Maybe the newbie hijacker pilots who could not keep a Cessna in the air, got lucky...three times...just sayin'...

"I think it so funny that these people who keep telling you that you are wrong just can not seem to show any evidence to contradict your evidence. Maybe they should spend more time researching this and less time trying to tell you that your wrong they may finally comprehend and understand the evidence you have shown."

And give up their paychecks? Not a chance!

"Are you people genuinely arguing over the identity of the planes becuase of the exact speed it could travel in the density of air at sea level?!?"

Yeah, what a silly thing to argue about. Everybody knows that some cave dwellers who could not keep a Cessna in the air could easily perform virtually impossible maneuvers with a 757/767 traveling at 25% above the safe speed limit designated by the manufacturer for those aircraft at such a low altitude. And they did this not once, not twice, but three times!

"You might as well be arguing whether the toilet seats on the plane were up or down."

Which reminds me, don't forget to flush the toilet on your way out.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Tiff, induced drag is a function of load factor and not speed. Parasite drag is a function of speed, actually a geometric function.

But yes, G load will increase Induced drag as well.

Induced drag is based on AoA. The higher the speed, the less AoA you need to maintain the same lift.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

It's interesting how, when relevant info on this topic is shared, some people put a lot of energy into discrediting the information and the people involved.

Same peole demand proof, without providing any themselves. Same people seek to discredit professional, eperienced experts whilst not providing any information about their own epertise.

Same people don't seem to want a considered exploration of the material to take place, nor a reasonable discussion.

Same people seem to want to distract others from debating this freely without being harassed.

Same people could look like government trolls to me, if I wasn't better informed. Just sayin'

I even vaguely recall that a good portion of those hijackers from one report I saw stated that they were still alive and in fact not on a plane that morning.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Same people don't seem to want a considered exploration of the material to take place, nor a reasonable discussion.

Same people seem to want to distract others from debating this freely without being harassed.

Bingo.

It's the classic, "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

The same herd has been attempting the same tired tactic for years. Unfortunately for them, it's not working and at most times, works against them.

"And don't jump to "but maybe a lot of them are afraid to say anything," because that's just idle speculation and wishful thinking."

Why would they be afraid to say anything? Could it be that many of these professionals rely on Government funding and subsidies for their jobs? Could it be that the Government is one of their biggest clients? Why should they be afraid to end up on the unemployment line? I don't think there is anything wrong with losing your house and eating cat food every day. These possibilities should not deter them from speaking up.

If it's one thing i've learned and I hope others, is that anytime you see too many in agreement of something, it is best to look the other way for the truth.

Originally posted by wcitizen
It's interesting how, when relevant info on this topic is shared, some people put a lot of energy into discrediting the information and the people involved.

Which is why theories should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Same peole demand proof, without providing any themselves.

And, when proof is provided, some say it's disinformation or find ways to debunk that evidence as well. Don't pretend that one side is the paragon of thought and logic and the other is just "in on it."

Same people seek to discredit professional, eperienced experts whilst not providing any information about their own epertise.

And some are very selective about what experts they choose to believe. They'd take the 1 geologist who says Earth is 6,000 years old over the horde that say 6 billion.

Same people don't seem to want a considered exploration of the material to take place, nor a reasonable discussion.

That's certainly what I've seen from people who dismiss anything that doesn't reinforce what they already believe.

Same people seem to want to distract others from debating this freely without being harassed.

What do you consider "debate?" Agreement? And is "harassment" when someone doesn't agree? I'm just trying to calibrate my hypocrisy meter - it's freaking out so much in this thread it could be broken.

Same people could look like government trolls to me, if I wasn't better informed. Just sayin'

See my first paragraph above.

When you're cornered, dismiss the questioner as a disinfo agent. Then, you're exactly like the people you deride.

I just want my check from the FBI/NSA/CIA/INTERPOL/MOSSAD/whatever. I'm apparently due some compensation.

All that being said, I thoroughly respect TiffanyInLA. I don't agree with her, but she definitely doesn't "hit and run." She truly believes what she posts and makes doubters defend themselves. THAT is debate.

All of this discussion is great, I personally believe something, or several somethings were just wrong with said day.
The only problem I see with all of this information is proof.
We have video of said birds crashing into the towers but no Radar gun to say how fast these jets were actually traveling.
The video can be professionally analyzed and all but in the end it is just conjecture.
Plus the fact that a whole boatload of people believes something was wrong with said day and still nothing gets done.
I say give up on 911 truthing because we will never find out who or why and we certainly can’t get a conviction.
So in the end we spin our wheels looking for a fact in the rubble pile that will never be found.
Sad but true, the only way to debunk me is to get a conviction.
Please someone debunk me.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
438 knots is Redline for the P-51.

Oh right. you sure know a lot about planes. Tiff.

The diagrams "prove" that not only did the aircraft exceed its maneuvering speed by more than 220 knots, it exceed the caution range by 150 knots, and plowed well into the Structural Failure zone by more than 90 knots.

This is what the diagrams show.

Yes. But since you are singularly unable to tell me whether a plane does or does not fail at 420 knots - and indeed the only example you've brought up shows a plane NOT failing at that speed - then I'm not sure what you think you've proved.

How much flight time do you have Tricky?

How much do you have, Tiffany? You seem to use a lot of jargon.

The "buffer zone" is the caution zone. See the yellow area in the diagram.

So planes automatically break up at the red line? Why didn't that happen to EA990?

It's not a "safety model". It is a V-G Envelope based on design specification set by the manufacturer derived from flight and wind tunnel testing.

It's a model that has been designed for safety purposes, as you point out above. If you think there's no buffer built in then answer the question - do planes automatically fall to pieces once they hit your red line? If not, when do they?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"And don't jump to "but maybe a lot of them are afraid to say anything," because that's just idle speculation and wishful thinking."

Why would they be afraid to say anything? Could it be that many of these professionals rely on Government funding and subsidies for their jobs? Could it be that the Government is one of their biggest clients? Why should they be afraid to end up on the unemployment line? I don't think there is anything wrong with losing your house and eating cat food every day. These possibilities should not deter them from speaking up.

Lets not forget exactly how these architects were surveyed. Were they presented with the evidence opposing the official story? Proper scientific explanation presented by their disagreeing-peers?

More than likely it was a simple "yes/no" format that they had to answer is the middle of their mundane workday.

dman,

You may want to read the thread. Particularly pay close attention to the numerous V-G diagrams posted.

Here it is again labeled with the V speeds for the 767-200.

(be sure to use the horizontal scroll bar on the bottom to see the right side of the chart. Some people were confused and counldn't find it)




You can see the "safety margins" above. It is called the caution range.

Above the Limit Dive speed, you are into Structural failure zone.

EA990 broke up in flight at 425 KEAS.

Precedent is set and corroborates the manufacturers set limits.

Please do not confuse Limit Dive Speed with Max Structural Cruise/Operating, or what you call "Vmax".

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"And don't jump to "but maybe a lot of them are afraid to say anything," because that's just idle speculation and wishful thinking."

Why would they be afraid to say anything? Could it be that many of these professionals rely on Government funding and subsidies for their jobs? Could it be that the Government is one of their biggest clients? Why should they be afraid to end up on the unemployment line? I don't think there is anything wrong with losing your house and eating cat food every day. These possibilities should not deter them from speaking up.

So, 3/4 of a million people are willing to cover up an atrocity just so they can keep getting checks?

Do you by any chance know how many of the professionals actually rely on government contracts? Or do you only have questions?