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: 8
127
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Before we go any further down this rabbit hole, let us take a quick deep breath, relax, and analyze this information.

(1) Is 'pilotsfor9/11truth.org' owned by a hobbyist blogger, or someone who is trying to hurt the government (or other people) for some reason?

(2) What makes these people so special; thus, their opinion about what happened on 9/11 'must be correct'?

(3) Can anyone make up (fake) information, recordings, and images, and then post them on a website for consumption?

(4) Since there is a 'donation' button at the bottom left, is this person looking to obtain funds off of his material? Is he trying to get rich off of people's interest in this subject matter?

(5) Is 'pilotsfor9/11truth.org' owned by a foreign entity (citizen or government)?

(6) Do the site owners have mental illness, criminal records, etc..?

Even though there are only five questions on my list, there are still more to be asked about this person's intentions. Since people can post anything online, without someone regulating the information, we must question things beyond what is on the pages.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Section31]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Just curious your long/latt location... Is that your travel trailer on the side of the road... Nice digs!

I dont understand the argument here..... Who cares how fast these planes were going. Does that really matter?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


I wasn't aware I'd been cornered.....in fact, I had simply been reading the thread....

Perhaps you could READ the thread and get your facts straight before launching that kind of criticism. As I hadn't posted on this thread previously, how exactly do you conclude that I was 'cornered.'

And yes, I was challenging people who a) do not seem to have any real kjnowledge of the subject b) Were shooting down other reasonable points of view without providing any evidence to back up what they were saying.

I am all for debate and different opinions, but my impression was and still is that they weren't interested in that.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 

I'm not doubting what you say, but as Societies are amorphous bodie, they can only have an 'official' line on any given subject, which doesn't necessarily represent the views of each of the individuals belonging to that society.


Right. But wouldn't you think, out of 3/4 of a million members, there would be a bit more than .001% speaking out?


Are you saying that these bodies have officially supported the Gov story. Do you know that all their members support the Gov story, and that non of them, as seems to be implied in your post, have any problems with the seemingly numerous anomalies which exist in the offical story?


There are also numerous anomalies in the Truther theories. Yet somehow these keep getting ignored. How many revisions did "Loose Change" have?

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"


The way I see it, it is entirely possible that some of the individuals supporting pilots for 9/11, or others seeking answers to many questions could actually be members of the societies you list?

I mean, the US Government has made a statement about 9/11 and its cause. Does that mean that no senator or congressman believes there are questions to be answered?


All of those things are possible. But it's not exactly damning evidence, is it?

It's like a prosecutor calling a witness who says he didn't see the crime, then telling the jury "Oh, he totally saw it and is just saying he didn't because he's worried about repercussions. So consider his silence to be absolute proof of the defendant's guilt," and that being allowed rather than causing an instant mistrial.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Wow - another nut comes out the woodwork with some claim and truthers go all gaga over it



Not "another nut"...the same Rob-nut. Its is him, no doubt about it. Exact same posting style, words, hawking the exact same thing that is going on over in his tree-house, a brand new member just joined a few days ago.

Its the Rob-nut.

He does this anytime he wants to stir up some traffic on his site. Things are slow so he picks up a sock, puts it on and comes here to sell his snake oil.

We'll see the same BS when (if he ever does) finish his military aviation element to 9/11 video. He'll no doubt apply the same formula to his other videos....he'll find the outliers...the rejects, the exceptions to the rule, those handful of pilots who will question the "official story" and he'll go all day saying "See? How can you question Capt Doofus with 546,318 hours of flight time in 439 aircraft? The list grows."

Yawn.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

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


More than you, less than Capt Rusty Aimer.

Your turn. Anytime you want to answer just one of my questions, feel free. You seem to evade them all, yet I'm answering all of yours.




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


It did break up, just over redline, you just aren't paying attention. Please re-read pages 3 and 4, IIRC.




If you think there's no buffer built in


There is a buffer zone built in. I already explained it to you, you even acknowledged it, but for some reason forget in your same post.

Here it is again.

See the yellow zone? What does it say in there?



That's right Tricky. It says "Caution". This zone is above the Max operating of the aircraft This is your "buffer zone". It is telling you that if you don't slow down, you are going to break the aircraft. You may even break the aircraft if the air is not smooth. Hmmm.. think the air was silky smooth that day? If the smoke coming off the North tower is any indication, it looks rather turbulent that close to the ground. Makes sense given all the buildings churning up the air flowing in from the North.


Do you know what happens when you maneuver an aircraft above it's maneuvering speed?

Here's a hint.



Repeating again since it seems you missed it the first 5 times.

According to the data, UA175 was maneuvering at 220 knots above it's maneuvering speed, 150 above its max operating, and 90 knots into the Structural Failure zone. That is, if you blindly support the government story.

Fortunately for many of us, a growing list of experts don't blindly support everything the government tells them.

This is why NASA Flight Director Dwain Deets feels the speeds reported are an "Aeronautical Improbability" and "The Elephant in the room".

He is not alone in his concerns.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Just curious your long/latt location... Is that your travel trailer on the side of the road... Nice digs!


Just that I'm...somewhere...between those coordinates.


I dont understand the argument here..... Who cares how fast these planes were going. Does that really matter?


Well, other than that being the topic of the thread...

I see it like the Creationists trying to poke little holes in the Theory of Evolution. The idea is that if you can cast doubt on the speed of the planes, or the temperature of the fire (ignoring that steel doesn't have to "melt" to lose strength), or the collapse of WTC7 (the last one ignoring the serious structural damage), then the whole Official Story is a pile of garbage.

I happen to like swiss cheese on my sammitches, so I don't scream that I'm being ripped off due to the cheese missing from the holes, because in its entirety it's better than "processed cheese food."



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
This stuff about "why isn't there an advocate group for the OS?" is pretty dumb.

Why isn't there a group that claims the first world war happened? Or that supports the hypothesis that the sun rises every morning?

Because when things are pretty much self-evident they tend not to attract petitions or lobby groups. In the real world there's no such thing as the "OS". So the vast numbers who basically agree with it - numbers that far outweigh the tiny few "architects" and "pilots" in the two groups above - remain uncounted. A silent, but enormous, majority.

(Except of course they're all in on it...)



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Wow - another nut comes out the woodwork with some claim and truthers go all gaga over it



Not "another nut"...the same Rob-nut. Its is him, no doubt about it. Exact same posting style, words, hawking the exact same thing that is going on over in his tree-house, a brand new member just joined a few days ago.

Its the Rob-nut.

He does this anytime he wants to stir up some traffic on his site. Things are slow so he picks up a sock, puts it on and comes here to sell his snake oil.

We'll see the same BS when (if he ever does) finish his military aviation element to 9/11 video. He'll no doubt apply the same formula to his other videos....he'll find the outliers...the rejects, the exceptions to the rule, those handful of pilots who will question the "official story" and he'll go all day saying "See? How can you question Capt Doofus with 546,318 hours of flight time in 439 aircraft? The list grows."

Yawn.



Wow, they're all coming out of the wood-work.

Hey, did William "Pinch" Paisley finally get an FAA certificate yet? Or is he still a wash-out/failure.

Kolstad got lots of laughs when he found out the guy was ordered to sit in the back seat. Poor Pinch, always last in line.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mobius1974
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


That argument holds no weight.....
The Maximum pressure on my tire says 35PSI... But I can surely put 60 to 70 in with out it exploding...
He is only saying that the true maximum can NOT be meassured without actually destroying the plane.


What is your max tire speed?

Let me know what happens when you take a turn at that speed and if your tire still stays together, at any pressure.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

Before we go any further down this rabbit hole, let us take a quick deep breath, relax, and analyze this information.

(1) Is 'pilotsfor9/11truth.org' owned by a hobbyist blogger, or someone who is trying to hurt the government (or other people) for some reason?

(2) What makes these people so special; thus, their opinion about what happened on 9/11 'must be correct'?

(3) Can anyone make up (fake) information, recordings, and images, and then post them on a website for consumption?

(4) Since there is a 'donation' button at the bottom left, is this person looking to obtain funds off of his material? Is he trying to get rich off of people's interest in this subject matter?

(5) Is 'pilotsfor9/11truth.org' owned by a foreign entity (citizen or government)?

(6) Do the site owners have mental illness, criminal records, etc..?

Even though there are only five questions on my list, there are still more to be asked about this person's intentions. Since people can post anything online, without someone regulating the information, we must question things beyond what is on the pages.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by Section31]


click

patriotsquestion911.com...

Should answer most of not all of your questions.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
First time I heard about the speed controversy, it was from Jhon Lear, also claiming it's was an hologram.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You know Kolstad? That's weird. I thought you were just some bit of fluff from LA who had happened upon the wonderful p4t. I imagined you were just spreading their "Truth" because you agreed with it...

Mind you, you do use a very similar writing style to Rob. And you pick me up on elements of syntax and spelling that you clearly don't understand yourself - a bit like Rob. And you seem to have a lot of aviation knowledge...

Curiouser and curiouser.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I know for many in the so-called "truth" movement if something is repeated enough times it automatically becomes a fact.


Where have I seen that brainwashing tactic before? Oh yeah...

Terrorists hate your country!
Terrorists want to take away your freedom!
Terrorists want to kill all of you and your families!
Terrorists are everywhere!
Terrorists! terrorists!! terrorists!!!

Sorry to go off-topic but I couldn't resist



Edit: fixed messed up formatting



[edit on 12/7/2010 by ThePatientMental]



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
What a shame, I really fancied Tiffany !!

But if the 757's and 767's of 9/11 were not the take-off originals then what were they and how were the switches made ?

I can hardly believe I just typed that ludicrous crap !



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 

Your tactic is clear. Obfuscation.
So NOW, all of these members of these organizations you mentioned have endorsed the OS?
Really? Where is your poll of these members?
How do you know what the members believe?
You DON"T.

This is why I am counted as one of those that have to wonder, why are you here? Then, it becomes clear. See first line, above.

(BTW, I could put CIA under my name, and actually BE CIA, couldn't I?)



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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!


Since the hijackers mostly came from middle class families, were well educated, and a number of them had prior flying skills (Mohammed Atta had a pilot's license from every country he visited, and Hani Hanjour had an FAA commercial pilot certificate), your "cave dwellers" rantings stinks of a disingenuous attempt to delude people into thinking that things are more sinister sounding than they really are ...but that's neither here nor there.

I've looked up these so-called "virtually impossible maneuvers" and I've found out that it's "flying in a circle". I'm not a pilot so I wouldn't know, but I'd have thought that "flying in a circle" would be the second thing they'd teach students how to do, right after "flying in a straight line". All these experts declaring that flying in a circle is virtually impossible aren't here, so I'll ask you- just why is flying in a circle "virtually impossible"? Please, explain that one to me in yoru own words.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

More than you, less than Capt Rusty Aimer.


Let me guess. About the same as Rob Balsamo?






It did break up, just over redline, you just aren't paying attention. Please re-read pages 3 and 4, IIRC.


No it didn't. It ultimately broke up, but before then it had already entered the red zone during its initial dive. It didn't break up then. Why not?




There is a buffer zone built in. I already explained it to you, you even acknowledged it, but for some reason forget in your same post.


You're very much not answering my questions though, are you? And you're hacking my post up as well. And ignoring what I write.

If you read me in full, I obviously mean a further buffer, beyond the yellow - ie that the red zone is pitched at the point where structural failure MAY occur.

You are continually failing to answer what I'm asking you. Do planes automatically break up after the red line? If not, when? If there's no further margin of error ("buffer") built in then I guess you do believe that planes breakup at exactly your red line.

But since you're answering "all" my questions I guess you just missed that one, right?




This is why NASA Flight Director Dwain Deets feels the speeds reported are an "Aeronautical Improbability" and "The Elephant in the room".

He is not alone in his concerns.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


Interesting that he calls them an "improbability". Not an impossibility.

I'm interested in your take Tiffany. Are they impossible?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The wording in the report makes it seem that an airplane cannot go above its maximum safe speed. This seems to be deceptive. Why would they want to appear deceptive? I have examined the flight speed recordings and they seem to be normal for an insane pilot.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
there are a lot of trolls in this thread

I just find amazing that the mods didnt do anything

there is actually no discussion about the subject ...


people say there are paid people on this board to destroy all the good discussion on the threads, its hard to deny it ...



new topics

top topics



 
127
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join