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.

 

9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

page: 102
141
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by lachstockn2
Wind tunnel testing is what I had in mind.

Anyone got access to one of those?


Interesting concept but wind tunnels are only air..
There are other forces at work such as G forces in the turns etc..


Agreed, which amounts to an additional complication which needs to be explained.

In other words, a flight simulator might demonstrate that the level of pilot skill might have been of an adequate standard.

Wind tunnel data might demonstrate that the air frame was robust enough to cope with the airspeed at 700 feet.

I'm not sure how to demonstrate that the G-forces and loading were not excessive under normal conditions, but it seems to me that this needs to be addressed as well.

So we are left with at least three separate issues which I think need to be accounted for, not just one or two.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



I don't think I have to re-post video examples, from airshows, of large commercial airplanes performing at LOW ALTITUDES and HIGH AIRSPEEDS? Do I?? (You can find them for yourself....)


Ahh yes, that would be good..
I'd like to see a similar sized passenger jet flying low altitude at or above 450knts or whatever speed was recorded on 9/11 at ground level...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


???


I'm not sure how to demonstrate that the G-forces and loading were not excessive under normal conditions.....


What "g-force" do you think an airplane experiences in level, unaccelerated flight? If you guess "ONE G" then you would be correct.

JUST AS YOU SITTING IN YOUR CHAIR, at your desk or whatever, and reading this on your computer screen...YOU ARE EXPERIENCING ONE G. (Here, I am assuming that you are NOT on an airplane right now, as you read this...but, even IF you were, on a typical airline flight......your "G" experience is going to be, usually, minimal. IF you actually fly in a real airplane, you may experience more forces that you can only imagine, sitting at our computer desk....).


For ANY of the flights of 9/11.....the G-forces were NOT "excessive". I hope you aren't getting crap from that nonsense "PilotsFor9/11Truth" site, and the imbecile there who calculated the "11/2-G" level-off???? (This is for American 77, at the Pentagon....an incredibly idiotic "calculation" by someone using data incorrectly....for his OWN twisted purpose....).


edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



What "g-force" do you think an airplane experieces in level, unaccelerated flight? If ou guesse "ONE G" then you would be correct.


I didn't say excessive G's WW, but it still would need to be taken into account if discussing stress factors on the plane at low altitude, high velocity and in a turn...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


...The "scenario"?...


What, did I use a crazy word out of context or something?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


"KEAS" was raised by those at the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" site, as yet another red herring distraction tactic.

"Equivalent Airspeed" is NOT something normally taught to pilots...I HAD TO LOOK IT UP (As did, I imagine, the bozos at "P4T") and what I found is it is an engineering term, specific to certain design aspects....IN MOST CASES, though....KEAS is just about the same as KCAS (a term I AM familiar with).

And, no...the "density" of the air near sea level is just more flatulence being spewed in your (the audience's) direction, by those sorts of websites......


Please clarify whether you mean:

(i) that air density is the same, irrespective of altitude

(ii) that air density varies according to altitude, but it is of no aerodynamic consequence

(iii) something else which you believe falls into the category of spewed flatulence (technically, I believe flatulence is farted and vomit is spewed, but nevermind).


Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


....I don't think I have to re-post video examples, from airshows, of large commercial airplanes performing at LOW ALTITUDES and HIGH AIRSPEEDS? Do I?? (You can find them for yourself....)....

edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


Actually, that would be nice. It's the type footage I've been hunting for ages.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I've searched for low level, high speed passenger jets on youtube..
Can't find anything other than fighter jets...
Have you got that link WW.??



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


What "g-force" do you think an airplane experiences in level, unaccelerated flight? If you guess "ONE G" then you would be correct.


edit on 14 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


xmarinx.sweb.cz...

Is this what is known as level, unaccelerated flight?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


You posted a link to a RADES chart for United 175 (even if misidentifed as a "Boeing 757").....and your point???

I fail to understand how MY comments about G forces were misinterpreted to that extent.

OF COURSE the people onboard UAL 175 experienced G forces.....they were at the mercy of people who were flying the airplane in a manner that was NOT how professionals fly. WE CAN ALSO, if we choose, manipulate the controls in a manner to exert G forces on the passengers....BUT, that is not how professional pilots fly the airplanes.


HAVE YOU EVER FLOWN AN AIRPLANE? Simple question. Yes or no.

If the answer is "No" then...well.....you do not (yet) have much experience with which to bring to this discussion.....



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



OF COURSE the people onboard UAL 175 experienced G forces.....they were at the mercy of people who were flying the airplane in a manner that was NOT how professionals fly. WE CAN ALSO, if we choose, manipulate the controls in a manner to exert G forces on the passengers....BUT, that is not how professional pilots fly the airplanes.


Ahh, we are not talking about "real pilots" here WW.
One post you say no G's next it's "Of Course"...
The thread is all about when terrorists had control so you are now admitting to the G's??

BTW, have you found that vid yet???



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


You posted a link to a RADES chart for United 175 (even if misidentifed as a "Boeing 757").....and your point???



I'm aware of the fact that the plane was misidentified on the chart. I was going to amend it before posting, until I remembered that it wasn't me who created the chart in the first place.

Interesting that you should draw our attention to that detail, though, considering that 5 minutes ago you argued that '67s and '57s are part of "the same family".

Perhaps you could contribute something constructive, like "The data represented in the RADES chart is wrong, because..."

Or, on the other hand, perhaps you can't.

Anyway, the POINT is that UAL 175 was NOT in continuous level, unaccelerated flight. This means that not only did the passengers and pilots experience additional Gs, but so did the plane. Which is why your assertion that G-forces are irrelevant to this discussion is almost as funny as it is wrong.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


I fail to understand how MY comments about G forces were misinterpreted to that extent.



So I'm answerable for your failings now? Sounds like quite a burden. I think I'll pass.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


HAVE YOU EVER FLOWN AN AIRPLANE? Simple question. Yes or no.

If the answer is "No" then...well.....you do not (yet) have much experience with which to bring to this discussion.....


I love it when experts try to patronise me. I think I'll stick around.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



HAVE YOU EVER FLOWN AN AIRPLANE? Simple question. Yes or no.

If the answer is "No" then...well.....you do not (yet) have much experience with which to bring to this discussion.....


If that were true then ATS would be a barren place..
Would make many of your posts in other threads irrelevant also...
Like the Moon hoax thread, unless you are an astronaut WW....



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What is MOST CRITICAL on the airframe is the Mach number....especially nearing critical Mach, when airflow patterns on areas of the airframe can be HIGHER than the overall airplane speed.


So then why does it show that Mmo is actually at a lower "overall" airspeed here?



Source - www.biggles-software.com...


Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Equivalent Airspeed" is NOT something normally taught to pilots...I HAD TO LOOK IT UP


Looks like you have a lot more studying to do. I recommend you learn more here from people who actually understand EAS and aerodynamics.


edit on 15-1-2011 by AntiSophist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiSophist
 


Ahhh...I see, per the hidden link (very clever??) you are YET ANOTHER ROB BALSOAMO sock.....

....will address your post in a bit.....AFTER alerting staff....



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Trying to explain....to someone who might have NOT ever experienced G forces in an airplane? I have no means to describe it for you, sorry.

YOU have to "feel" it.....AND, I will then see the look on your face......

...only OTHER example I can possibly hope you relate to is turbulence, for those instances that you've experienced...on a commercial flight.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yes, we know weddy, we are ALL "Rob Balsamo" who are able to back you into a corner. This is a really good post here if you care to address this one first.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


Trying to explain....to someone who might have NOT ever experienced G forces in an airplane? I have no means to describe it for you, sorry.

YOU have to "feel" it.....AND, I will then see the look on your face......

...only OTHER example I can possibly hope you relate to is turbulence, for those instances that you've experienced...on a commercial flight.





You should stop assuming Weedwhacker...
I have been in many planes small and large.
I have flown planes, small only...
I have relatives in the airforce...
I think I know a little more than you assume....

I KNEW about G forces well before I EXPERIENCED them.......



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


AGREED!!!!


Anyway, the POINT is that UAL 175 was NOT in continuous level, unaccelerated flight.



Yes, indeed.....it WAS NOT!!! I thought I had made that clear....again, WORDS do not describe, adequately, what can be EXPERIENCED and FELT.....this limitation of "words" is the bane of trying to describe, to non-pilots....



This means that not only did the passengers and pilots experience additional Gs, but so did the plane.


YES. again true.....BUT.....how many additional Gs is the question. The "PilotsFor9/11Truth" would lie to you, and tell you many stories....ALL based on exaggerations and skewed thinking, in order to "press" their "case"....I, however.....having the EXPERIENCE in the actual airplanes, can envision the simplicity with which they "dove" on their targets. IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPT OF "DIVING" ON A TARGET.....just look to the "Kamikaze" of World War II....or ANY other "dive-bomber" type airplane from that era, as well.....


Which is why your assertion that G-forces are irrelevant to this discussion is almost as funny as it is wrong.


NO.....I meant that the "ASSERTION" that the G forces were "excessive" are horribly over stated.

OK....man, do I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS VIDEO AGAIN?????????:




It is frustratingly short, that clip....but PLEASE stay with me, and watch....EVERY PILOT will see what I have to say, immediately....because it's so obvious. For the NON-pilots, though??:

AS the video opens, the view is over the "captain's" right shoulder. You can see HIS flight instruments.....but, the Airspeed Indicator is WAY off to the left.....you have a good view of the EFIS screens ....center.....but, UNLESS you are familiar with them and what they display, may mean NOTHING to you.

LOOK, instead, to the "vertical" column of what (for the CAPTAIN) are the "STANDBY" instruments. These are the ones powered BY THE BATTERY, in case of a dire emergency that involves a total electrical failure....AND you are relying on ONLY the batteries for the intervening (per regulation minimum) 30 minutes.

(ACTUALLY....in regards the STBY instruments....the ALTIMETER and VVI are NOT "powered" from any source....they operate in the same way that the SAME sorts of instruments operate in any airplane....for the STBY function, the Battery --- tied via the BAT BUS electrical distribution ---- powers the Attitude Indicator. There is designed in, theoretically ENOUGH redundancy that reliance on JUST the STBY Instruments is a very, very rare occurrence. HOWEVER, we DO train, and practice it, nonetheless....)


AS YOU FOCUS on the center instruments....(AND, look as well at the EFIS that shows the airplane pitch attitude...IT is "center" to the Captain's point-of-view) ....LOOK at the VERY shallow angle of pitch....the minimum required to (With thrust set at about "cruise power" settings) to achieve what their goal was, in that demo.....to EXCEED Vmo.

ONCE THEY MET THAT AIRSPEED, they (he, the man fling) too k steps to reduce speed....by REDUCING THURST, levelling off to maintain a specific altitude....AND (because the B-767 is VERY "slick" and will just "keep on going") he pulls the speed brakes....and STILL< it takes a while to "slow down" enough to stop the Master Warining Overspeed aural alarm......

IF HE DID NOT REDUCE THRUST.....AND, KEEPING THE NOSE "DOWN" ONLY THAT MUCH (NOT a lot)...the airspeed would CONTINJUE TO INCREASE>


THAT is what occurred on 9/11 On UAL 175, AAL 11 and AAL 77.

IT is SO Basic, to a pilot.....it is difficult to describe to you laypeople......

...IT is ALSO so basic, that I stand with mouth agape at eh audacity of the sorts....such as "Rusty" Aimer, or "Rotten" Ralph Kolstad....or "Rob Balsamo".....as they utter their tripe......
edit on 15 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The "PilotsFor9/11Truth" would lie to you, and tell you many stories...


Why would so many (and a growing list of...) real and verified pilots, lie? Surely if they were liars, they would rather not show their face and names?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Clearly you have much less experience than the pilots and aviation professionals listed above. You even admit you had to look up EAS. Is this why you have evaded the evidence for more than 100 pages?

The FINAL score -

Evidence for Tiff's argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

Data -
NTSB
Boeing
Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
NASA Research


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


Debunkers lose.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



THAT is what occurred on 9/11 On UAL 175, AAL 11 and AAL 77.

IT is SO Basic, to a pilot.....it is difficult to describe to you laypeople......


I hate repeating posts but what was the altitude of this overspeed flight?
You said you had vids of low level, high speed passenger jets..
Are you going to show them??
I have honestly searched and found none other than fighter jets..

I don't think I have to re-post video examples, from airshows, of large commercial airplanes performing at LOW ALTITUDES and HIGH AIRSPEEDS? Do I?? (You can find them for yourself....)....



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiSophist
 


No need to copy/pste/quote.

It is MORE THAN EVIDENT, based on this (rather new ATS member's) style.....yet again, the same as has been seen previously, in this thread, by OTHER "ATS screenames"....


......however, for the benefit of those who might stumble upon this thread so "late in the game"....I will feel HONORED to address the most egregious errors, as asserted by this latest iteration......

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXHIBIT "A" that freshly coined ATS username above is NONE OTHER than TifinayInLA "re-incarnated":

POST from the "newest" sock name, above....(Please compare to PREVIOUS sock posts....):


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.



TOTAL LIES (as I have, on multiple occasions, taken great pains to point out...)


edit on 15 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
141
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join