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: 103
141
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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)


Yes, i have read the thread. You repeat the above same statement many times, but fail to provide one single source to your supposed "multiple occasions, taken great pains to point out..". The reason you fail to provide such source, is because each time you attempted to "debunk" anything, you were shown where you were wrong.

C'mon weedy, just show us one source of you "multiple occasions".




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



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....


So why don't you try debating with REAL PILOTS instead of complaining about it???
I checked the link to p4t, they have chat..They seem civil from the little I read..

So go and beat them down with facts Weedwhacker..
Much better than debating with me and others then complaining we don't know enough...
I'd be interested to see the outcome.....



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



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....


So why don't you try debating with REAL PILOTS instead of complaining about it???
I checked the link to p4t, they have chat..They seem civil from the little I read..

So go and beat them down with facts Weedwhacker..
Much better than debating with me and others then complaining we don't know enough...
I'd be interested to see the outcome.....



weedy doesnt want to debate any real and verified pilots. I assume that is why ATS bans those who who have actual aeronautical knowledge and are able to back weedy into a corner? Just an observation.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


"b.i.b."


I HAVE, many times, sought and posted the YouTube versions....sorry you never noticed them before:


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..


[Perhaps your "search" parameters were incorrect???





While not "high speed".....THIS VIDEO shows (fromt eh 1960s) the maneuverabilty of a BOEING jet:



Tex Johnson did, there what is called a "Barrel Roll"....it is profoundly different from an "aileron roll"....a BARREL roll is a basic ONE G roll....well, a BIT MORE than "ONE" G....about 1.3 G.....

AS CZOMPARED TO an "aileron" roll.......I have flown aerobatics....and in an "aileron roll" when you are inverted. there is a brief NEGATIVE G. Compared to the video and a "BARREL ROLL"....a "barrel roll" has a "positive" G the whole way though.

Funny (AND TRUE!!!) story.......at Continental Airlines.

YES! THIS ACTUSLLY happened....I don't make stuff up...(well before my time, I heard it later).....

Back in the LATE 60s/early 70s.....many flights on Continental would END at the Ontario Airport (ONTARIO IS about 60 miles, or so due EAST of Los Angeles). In order to "re-position" the airplanes (back then Boeing 727s) to LAX ( a crew AND airplane maintenance base)...the VERY SHORT and (usually passenger-empty) segment form ONTARIO to LOS ANGELES was a "dead-head"...("DH" has other meanings...but for now, refers to FLYNG the airplane for re-positing purposes....NEEDS a crew for that...well, only the PILOTS, but the reality of airline scheduling meant that the F/As went along....)

(since no passengers, decided to practice some "aerobatic"s...(since no passenger).....BUT the F/As looked out he windows (sitting in First Class sears) and SCREAMED!!!!!

Well.....rest is "history".....since the pilot's simple transgression was NOTICED....and alerted


"TEX" in the commentary calls it a "Chandelle" well he is correct.....as a "term" for that era.


HOWEVER...a "chandelle" as was dfiend later (AS PART OF A flght "maneuver" defined by the FAA to dempnstatre a specific grasp of the airplane's aerodynamics....AGAIN, this is somethong I HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE....wlords to not do it justice.......



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



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


nvm...double post.
edit on 15 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for the vid Weedwhacker...
I watched it and to be honest, that does NOT look like a high speed pass to me...
What would YOU estimate it's speed to be???



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Here's a longer official vid..
Seems not so high speed and the commentators don't even mention it..
It's a NZ airforce plane..



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Real pilots.

A man pretending to be a porn star and a load of socks.

Yeah, I'd definitely want to be on their team. They have so much credibility.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Real pilots.

A man pretending to be a porn star and a load of socks.

Yeah, I'd definitely want to be on their team. They have so much credibility.


Great post..I like the way you debate with links and provable facts..
Thanks for that insightful post.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Real pilots.

A man pretending to be a porn star and a load of socks.

Yeah, I'd definitely want to be on their team. They have so much credibility.


Great post..I like the way you debate with links and provable facts..
Thanks for that insightful post.


No worries. I can prove my assertions if you like, although a moment's googling will show you that "Tiffany" isn't really the person you think she is.

My rebuttals to "her" are a matter of record in this thread. But obviously they're a bit uncomfortable if you're a truther so you should probably ignore them.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



No worries. I can prove my assertions if you like, although a moment's googling will show you that "Tiffany" isn't really the person you think she is.


Odd comment.


I'm not even sure they are a she..
We, including you, are nothing more than anonymous posters...
Unless you really are Mr Shade..If so, Hi Trickofthe..



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
www.grc.nasa.gov...

Notice that the very first statement made on NASA's website in relation to "Density Effects on Aerodynamic Forces" is -

"Aerodynamic force is directly related to the air density flowing past the body."

Here is another link, randomly chosen out of literally thousands of Google results, which state unequivocally that air density decreases as altitude increases -

www.waybuilder.net...

So, given that you have dismissed air density as "spewed flatulence", I'll give you one more chance to explain why P4T are wrong to cite EAS and the critical importance of air density in terms of its relationship to aerodynamic stress.

I was about to introduce a related term, known as Parasite Drag, but I might give you a chance to do some research on it first. I'll give you a hint, though - it has almost nothing to do with microscopic cross-dressing protozoic organisms.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....


You know, Weedsmoker, dibber dobbing would have to be the last refuge for the desperate and defeated coward. I might be paraphrasing someone there, perhaps it was God or something, so I can't take credit for that particular morsel of wisdom. But it seems to me that you should take that advice on board, before you make yourself look even more foolish.

You also might want to be careful before making the assumption that I don't understand your posts. I can grasp them perfectly, but I ALSO understand that the only thing redder than the herrings you keep dishing up are your flushed scarlet cheeks. Considering you have so much flight experience, I'm surprised at how easily non-pilots are exposing the flaws in your arguments. There's really no need to express frustration with my lack of flight experience and pilot training. I assure you, neither of these things are at the root of your failure to convince me or communicate your thoughts.




Originally posted by weedwhacker

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....



I take it back - I have no idea what any of this means. The pilots badly needed a drink of water, so they began throwing random letters of the alphabet around the cockpit?


Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by lachstockn2
 






You can continue posting the above video if you like, but I ignored it the first time, and I'll ignore it again, because in no way does it resolve the key issues as I see them.

My eyesight is not acute enough to tell exactly how fast this plane was travelling, or at what altitude (according to the instruments), but I'm preapared to bet year's wages that it was either (a) well under 510 knots (b) well above 700 feet or (c) both "a" and "b".

So, you are left with the choice of (i) stating precisely what these values were or (ii) admitting that you have no idea what either of these values were.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. I am less interested - still interested, just LESS interested - in finding out if a 767 is capable of producing enough thrust to reach 510 knots at low altitudes, than I am in learning if the plane would disintegrate before the pilot would ever get a chance to try. I'm sure there are a number of ways to achieve those speeds, by cranking the turbines or with the assistance of gravity for example. But would the plane survive?

Bottom line? Your attempts to bombard us with bamboozlement are woefully transparent. You need to do better.

And TrickoftheShade - you need to grow up.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 



"Aerodynamic force is directly related to the air density flowing past the body."


Hey, don't underestimate us ignorant posters.


As an EXTREME example of the effects of atmosphere/air on stress factors, lets look at the ISS..

It's orbiting speed with no atmosphere/air averages 27743.8 km/h..

I'm pretty sure even us ignorant, non commercial pilots know what would happen to the ISS if it tried the same at ground level..

Extreme example yes but also accurate....



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lachstockn2

And TrickoftheShade - you need to grow up.


Why?

This is a conspiracy theory website. Click a few threads at random and you'll see that infantilism is pretty much the order if the day.

And anyway, I don't see what's particularly juvenile about pointing out the pathetic attempts of P4T's spokesman to spam this site. You must admit that it hardly enhances their credibility. Indeed you could say they're the ones who need to grow up.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by lachstockn2

And TrickoftheShade - you need to grow up.


Why?

This is a conspiracy theory website. Click a few threads at random and you'll see that infantilism is pretty much the order if the day.

And anyway, I don't see what's particularly juvenile about pointing out the pathetic attempts of P4T's spokesman to spam this site. You must admit that it hardly enhances their credibility. Indeed you could say they're the ones who need to grow up.


Well, this appears to be the obstacle we've been facing from the outset. Accusing a juvenile of behaving like a juvenile tends to carry minimal persuasive impact. It's like going up to a monkey and saying, "hey monkey, stop acting like such a monkey". He'll probably just shrug his shoulders and continue eating his banana or something.

This thread is almost pure flab. Sure, Balsamo - assuming it's him - sounds like a broken record when he posts and re-posts the same V-G Diagrams, cites the same real-life precedents and refers to the same aerodynamic principals. If any of these anomalies had been shown to be innocuous, irrelevant or wrong, then sure - creating new accounts just to re-hash them over and over might qualify as a misdemeanour, and punishable by termination. But under the circumstances, I don't blame him for registering as many times as he deems necessary.

Nor would I blame him for not making an announcement to the effect of "Hey guys, it's Rob here again. Just thought I'd let you know I've created another membership here, just so I can voice the same arguments that got me banned the first 20 times." OF COURSE he's not dopey enough to identify himself when he knows it's a kamikaze mission in the first place. Yet, people continue to berate him for building his own sock puppet factory and engaging in deception - as if he has any other option. Does anyone really believe he would resort to this tactic, if his original membership was still active? I think not.

Conversely, I find myself unimpressed when people like Whacker whinge and moan about having to link to the same evidence, when it is patently obvious that none of it serves to contradict any of Balsamo's points. Claiming to have de-bunked them time and time again means nothing to me, because I've read the entire thread, and no such examples exist. For over two hours, I locked myself into a mental police state and read the entire tedious, mind-numbing "discussion". It became very clear very quickly that none of Balsamo's original statements were ever under threat.

This remains the case, up to this very moment. But if you have anything new to add, then please do it. I have no agenda. I'd love to stroll into P4T as a layman and explain to them why they are all wrong.

TO ADD: The above was posted under the ASSUMPTION that all these supposed socks are being worn by Balsamo. This, in NO WAY, verifies the unfounded accusation that they ARE.
edit on 16-1-2011 by lachstockn2 because: Disclaimer added



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by lachstockn2
 


Well....you've (unintentionally perhaps) focused in on the problem:


....Balsamo - assuming it's him - sounds like a broken record when he posts and re-posts the same V-G Diagrams, cites the same real-life precedents and refers to the same aerodynamic principals. If any of these anomalies had been shown to be innocuous, irrelevant or wrong, then sure ...


It is a fact that he (or whomever posted, those "broken record" claims) had been repeatedly challenged as to their veracity. AND, yes.....the citing of "real-life incidents" and such "he" used were shown to be gross misrepresentations of the facts.

The V-G diagram was also worthless, for his baseless assertions that he claimed it "proved"....and his continued repeating of more lies and exaggerations, regarding the actual g-forces that would have been experienced by the airplanes of 9/11.

Not ONCE did "he" properly respond to any of the (valid) challenges to his "broken record" assertions. You saw his "style", plainly....typically when "responding" it edited out pertinent points made, with the phrase "removed irrelevant content", or some similar statement. He then proceeded to mangle the point of any challenge to him, delfecting and dodging, and ended it with yet ANOTHER "repeat" once more.

The citations of the V-G diagram were red herings, and not relevant (except, in as much, to show a velocity of "Vd"....and, that diagram was only altered AFTER it was pointed out to him of that Type Certification Supplemental information, from Boeing. Prior, he had drawn the V-G diagram with the speed of Vmo (360 knbots) at the far right speed "limit").

Furthermore, the use of the (four, IIRC) "cigtings" of other airplanes, such as Egypt Air 990, and China Air 006, to name two, were used incorrectly and referenced incorrectly. Yet, "repeated" ad nauseum, even after the flaws in his "argument" were pointed out....and IGNORED by him.

.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...and, that diagram was only altered AFTER it was pointed out to him of that Type Certification Supplemental information, from Boeing. Prior, he had drawn the V-G diagram with the speed of Vmo (360 knbots) at the far right speed "limit").


Another classic example of why Weedy never sources his claims.

This is the first time the V-G diagram was ever posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What does it say all the way to the "far right" weedy? Thats right Einstein, it says 420 knots, at the Vd line. Beyond that, it says "Structural Failure".

Considering the fact your credibility is nearly non-existent, you may not want to compound your situation further with compulsive lies.


You should also check this out...


Also, here is a visual depiction based on data.



The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.

Some have made the claim the above diagram is "fake". Those who make such a claim clearly aren't aware that a Vg can be plotted when the V-speeds are known.

They claim the above diagram is "fake" because it doesn't provide a weight or altitude range, nor G-load range. Actually, it does.

Again they demonstrate their lack of research ability and lack of aeronautical knowledge.

The speeds are based on the weight ranges in the A1NM Type Certificate data sheet which also give an altitude range.

VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.

The above diagram is good from sea level, up to almost 18,000 feet. Above that, the Vg diagram actually moves to the left. In other words, structural failure speeds are less in terms of Indicated at higher altitudes. Real pilots can see this as they climb. The Vmo indicator (Barber pole) actually moves to a lower airspeed once you climb above the crossover altitude. The reason for this is the aircraft is no longer limited by raw dynamic pressure, rather it is now becoming limited by the effects of Mach (both drag related, which is why EAS is calculated using Mach number and good to above Mach 2). A good explanation of this is shown here.

Vmo/Mmo

The G-Loads are based on FAA Regulation, as is every Vg diagram, except military.

For those who wish to learn more regarding Vg diagrams and the effects of weight/altitude, click here...

www.apstraining.com...

If you come across someone who thinks our diagrams are "fake", feel free to give them the above video course, or tell them to call their local flight school.

The above speeds as set by the manufacturer based on wind tunnel and flight testing are also confirmed based on precedent, using Egypt Air 990 which suffered in flight structural failure 5 knots above Vd (Vd defines the structural failure line for every Vg envelope). See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" for in depth analysis.


Source



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Let's simplify it.

(i) Vmo for a 767-200 is 360 knots at sea level. True or false?

(ii) For all intents and purposes, air density at 700 feet is comparible to air density at sea level. True or false?

(iii) Vd for a 767-200 is 425 knots. True or false?

(iv) UAL 175 was travelling at approximately 510 knots at 700 feet when it impacted the South Tower. True or false?

(v) 510 knots is 85 knots faster than 425 knots. True or false?

(vi) UAL was pulling and banking out of a dive shortly before striking its target. True or false?

(vii) Entering into a dive might potentially allow the plane to exceed Vmo (360 knots), but only within the bounds set by Vd (425 knots). True or false?

(viii) Exceeding Vd by 85 knots would result in structural damage or failure, at least theoretically, even if the plane had entered into a dive. True or false?

(ix) Levelling out of a dive would increase G-loading (on the airframe itself), making it even more likely that exceeding Vd by 85 knots would result in structural failure. True or false?

Remember, the challenge is to answer "true" or "false" only. Let's see if we can identify some common ground, and take it from there.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Perhaps my questionnaire made whacker slightly uncomfortable. Admittedly, demanding a response of "true" or "false" was unfair. It all sounds too much like having to give a straight answer, when I already know he deals exclusively in wonky ones.

Anyway, these were my responses. No cheating, anyone!

(i) True
(ii) True
(iii) True
(iv) True
(v) True
(vi) True
(vii) True
(viii) True
(ix) True



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Look, it's pretty simple. The plane doesn't just cease to exist when it hits the structural failure point. It doesn't automatically explode just because it reaches a mark on a graph that Balsamo has made himself.

The likelihood is that the planes were risking severe structural damage. But the pilots, judging by what they did, probably weren't that bothered. I'm guessing.

Add in the other socks' refusal to respond to simple questions, inability to countenance the implications of their argument, and outright lies (how many ALPA officers are members of P4T?) then it's pretty clear what the writer(s) are up to. And hardly a surprise that they're not exactly changing the world.




top topics



 
141
<< 100  101  102    104  105  106 >>

log in

join