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: 109
141
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 
NO....again, you aren't understanding.....what you are referring to are the numerous (slanted and usually vaguely worded) polls and surveys?? Read the questions they ask...then re-evaluate what you wrote:

.....one thing that is a proven FACT is that people who NOW believe the Government version of events on 9.11 are well and trully in the minority..

SEE if any of those polls ask specific quiestions, such as "inside job", and crap like that......
The only "government version" of events that has people sensing a "cover-up" is due to what I HAVE MENTIONED dozens of times before.....it is the twisting and evasion of the events that LED UP to that day.
It is very simple.....once it had happened, the inevitable finger-pointing started. And eveyone even remotely involved immediately began to find ways to cover their butts.....thousands of different ways.
THAT is the whole of it....people who knew that, for many and varied reasons, they FAILED big time, wanted to make sure the taint of that failure fell on someone, anyone OTHER than them.
The inter-agency rivalry is unacceptable, and those people (with their egos, and hubris, and petty squabbles and personal vendettas and self-aggrandizment attitudes) KNOW that if the details of how incompetent, and schizophrenic the various Intel agencies were, it would reflect poorly on them individually.
CIA, FBI, NSA, etc etc.......they were all dysfuctional, especially in dealing with each other. "Turf Wars", that sort of thing.
THERE...that is your "conspiracy"....and, it is going to be a lot more difficult to unravel allof those details. There is, though, NOTHING to indicate any internal "collusion", in the sense that so, so many moronic so-called "truth" sites try to claim.
They dropped the ball....and, WHEN faced with the actual reality, those (also in the "government") made a valiant, valiant effort....much is just not known, nor understood....by the majority of "truthers"...because they don't read much beyond their computer screens.
There are many, many books that, when all read together, help to give a feel for the incredible ways that people adapted to a very confusing, complicated and fast-changing situation. AN unheard-of situation.
I think one of the best ones, chronicaling the aviation aspect, to include NORAD's response, is "Touching History", by author (and airline pilot) Lynn Spencer.
How many actual books have any so-called "truthers" read, besides the tripe that only supports their delusions??
Another that describes the WTC is "102 minutes"...Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn......

edit on 22 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)


How dare you say I don't understand..!!!!!
My words that you quoted were perfectly correct...
Did I mention inside job? NO....
I merely stated people do not believe the OS..

You are nothing special Weed..DO NOT try to twist my words or pretend to know what I think..

It's YOU that doesn't understand...
I and a few others posted ages ago that the next step to this OS fantasy would be you trusters agreeing the OS was flawed..
And that you would all say it was merely due to incompetence on the part of US officials and agencies..

Guess we knew what the next level of lies would be.And you live up to them perfectly




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Cool your jets....the point is, by mentioning this:


I merely stated people do not believe the OS..


You repeated a fallacious "argument". There is no singularly defined thing as an "OS".

The point is, the questions in any polls or surveys?? I said, check how they are phrased, and see the way the "results" are twisted by the so-called "TM".

IN fact, there is a great deal of possibility that all of the vast loads of crap....from those same "TM" sites...the ones full and full of wrong, skewed, wildly speculative "informaiton"...to include the inevitable DIS-information...are influencing the gullible out there...the gullible who will lkely have been participants in those polls and surveys.

In any event, the key "question" regarding those results is the EXACT question(s) asked.

How many of them say, specfically, something like: "Do you believe the U.S. government planned the entire events of 9/11 from the ground up, with full knowledge aforethought??"

THAT is very, very different than the actual poll results, vaguely asking "Is the U.S. government telling you everything about 9/11?"

BIG, big difference.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Cool your jets....the point is, by mentioning this:


I'll "cool my jets" when YOU stop the BS posts calling everyone but you stupid...
I see many are getting sick and tired of your attitude...

I'm not stupid Weed, I actually LOOKED at the questions asked..
Yes, some were slanted questions, others weren't...

Go check yourself and show proof I'm wrong....

And personally It doesn't matter to me how much involvement the Government had..
Whether they planned the whole thing entirely, partially or merely knew it was planned..
It's irrelevant to the discussion..
It would still make them guilty of a crime..Agreed??



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusPrimeX
 


Answer was posted one page back. In brief.



Part 25 aircraft are also required to have design enhancements that allow continued safe flight after certain structural failures that would make a Part 23 aircraft unairworthy. G-loading tolerances are just one of the differences between the two aircraft design standards.


www.stickandthrottle.com...



Part 25 Transport Category airplanes are not so "simple" that any one Vg Diagram can apply to them, there are just too many variables, and too wide an operating envelope. When you get up to that category of jet.

AS you should no doubt know, even for the light airplanes, the chart as drawn is for a specific gross weight...usually max. Or, chould have several, for different weights.

The chart, there....with the mathematical relationships, of the slope of the lines, representing the connections to speeds and G-loads is great for 'theory', and to educate student pilots...AND< yes, it is useful for those more advanced who fly aerobatics....but, really...still NO ONE "thinks" of that graph, and chart, when actually flying!!!

We have other means, right? To judge and "feel" the airplane. "Theory" is fine for a classroom setting, and is great for helping to educate.

In any event, the Vg-Diagram (as attempted to "shoehorn" into representing a "B-75/76" ...or any other Boeing, or Airbus) is irrelevant.

In any case....by reading the link above (AND, even the "Handbook", from where the diagram appears to have been lifted).

Must I also copy/paste THAT relevant text???



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



In any event, the Vg-Diagram (as attempted to "shoehorn" into representing a "B-75/76" ...or any other Boeing, or Airbus) is irrelevant.

In any case....by reading the link above (AND, even the "Handbook", from where the diagram appears to have been lifted).


So is the Vg diagram that they posted correct or not?
If it's not then please post a correct one...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblackSo is the Vg diagram that they posted correct or not?


No it's not, because it's not a B767/57 vg diagram.

More like something like this:


UPSIDE DOWN IN AN AIRPLANE? NOW WHAT?


www.apstraining.com...

You may have better luck here: www.pprune.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



If it's not then please post a correct one...


The Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co. doesn't make any such chart for its products.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 



If it's not then please post a correct one...


The Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co. doesn't make any such chart for its products.


Surely a pilot needs such a graph to show the structural limitations of the plane they are flying..
Are you saying there isn't one or just not one released by Boeing?
As you say, Big Difference...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   

edit on 23-1-2011 by alien because: ...post removed - sock a/c banned...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Is this video fake Weed.??


If it isn't then it screws up everything you have said so far..
Show me how it's fake...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


well its a powered decent, there is no "dive bombing" as you put it, have you seen a dive bombing aircraft? this is well within the operational limits set out in standard flight for this aircraft type, it looks fast due to the buildings in the shot and the angle that the video was taken, but it is an easy manoeuvre to complete, i have seen similar aircraft and others of the same weight/type pull off similar moves during airshows and aircraft testing.

Also if you look at the NASA astronautic training, the aircraft they use completes a parabolic manoeuvres that it is move violent than this.

Also Weed is correct in informing you that the diagrams that are being banded about by the P4T movement are not correct, without knowing the weight and fuel levels and a handful of other datapoints you cannot have a correctly made diagram, Commercial aircraft do not suffer the same in flight as some civilian/light aircraft so a compaeesion of these diagrams cannot be made.

The 7 series of aircraft are exceedingly strong and have aerobatic ability, i know some do not believe this as they do not see this aircraft type pull these manoeuvres but this is due to limitations set but individual carriers and ATC etc, this is for both your safety and to extend the life of the aircraft so more profit can be made, more flights can be made and servicing intervals can be reached, nothing more.


Wee Mad
edit on 23/1/2011 by weemadmental because: more text



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


NO, it isn't fake. At least, don't think so. However, it is intentionally used to deceive. There are many angles to compare with....and, not knowing THAT camera lens focal length, hard to tell if the descent path was exaggerated.

Let's see...weemadmental explained it (and, OH I am glad I'm posting at about same time....someone --- forget who--- tried to claim we were ONE person!!! I like Scotland and all, but can't teleport)!! (yet).


Let's look at the video, and apply some timing to it, OK? I'll be back, gotta grab some notepaper....

From the beginning, as the airplane is descending into the frame...(NOTE that its nose is not in any severe pitch angle down....just a matter of a few degrees makes a big difference...AND, if it's down two or three degrees, it's just as easy to raise it back up, smoothly...doesn't even pull that many Gs)....

Just using my (inaccurate) "one-potato" method, I get about seven seconds...from entry into frame, dissapearance out of view, and re-emergence in view....where the descent is definately shallower. (Still, about a split second before impact, though).

However, before getting too detailed, consider this: A VERY EASY rate of descent, in that airplane (or, any big jet) of 2,500 feet per minute can be achieved, with no outrageous "aerobatics" required. When you fly, and on the descent for landing, it is quite typical. SO...2,500 fpm is equal to ~42 feet lost, every second. At my (roughly) seven seconds, that's around 300 feet, easily. Let's say he was descending at an even faster rate...3,500 is ALSO very easy to accomplish. That gives just over 400 feet lost, in the seven seconds.

You can keep those examples in mind, in order to keep it all in perspective.

NOW....have to estimate the number of feet lost, vertically, in that time span. THAT is more difficult. The total height of the Tower was, what? Just over 1,000 feet? Impact between floors 77 - 85.

SO....have to research to see how much building height was ABOVE the center of that area (Floor 81) and use that as a guide. And, "eyeball" the approximate height above the building, while allowing for possible angle exaggeration, due to camera placement......


Once again, this video demo, from inside and showing the flight instrumenbts, is useful for illustration. ALSO a B-767, and in this case they only allow it to accelerate to Vmo, before beginning to end the demo.

As the video opens (and when you know where and and how to read the instruments) the rate of descent is PEGGED at the maximum the instrument can display...which is 6,000 fpm down.

The airplane's actual pitch attitude, in degrees nose down, (hard to get an accurate sight, it's blurry) is at my best guess, 5 to 6 degrees. Again, perfectly normal, and perfectly comfortable, and somehting not uncommon on every flight. The reason the airplane below is accelerating is due to the engine thrust (as was the case with United 175). You see his "recovery" procedure, as soon as they reach Vmo, he simulataneously closes the thrust levers to flight idle, and raises the nose, ever so slightly, in order to level at an altitude. Reducing thrust, obviously...levelling ALL contribute to allowing the airplane to decellerate. He enhances that by raising the speed brakes, as well. (Since the only way to silence the Master Warning sound (that overspeed siren) is by reducing the overspeed condition...you can't "cancel" it, as you can with most other aural warnings. Alternately, they could pull a circuit breaker, but that's inadvisable, since it would inhibit any OTHER warnings ....and for that test, the brief noise was acceptable.

You can see how effortlessly he levelled off, and arrested the descent rate. NO drama, no fuss no muss...and NO severe G forces, at all....




edit on 23 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 



well its a powered decent, there is no "dive bombing" as you put it


I read that far and stopped..

I'm sick and tired of being told I said something I didn't say..
Try again....




top topics



 
141
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join