9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by backinblack

True or false Weed...
510 knots at sea level produces the same dynamic pressure effects as 1.42 Mach at 30,000 feet.

So sorry, did not see this question until now, when I was alerted to it (from another source).

Answer: False

MACH is MACH. Period. Mach is mach is mach.......


Some (few) deluded individuals, usually associated with some who claim to be "pilots" for some so-called "truth" attempt to muddy the waters, and spout utter Bravo Sierra in order to drive trafffic to their (HIS) silly website......a con is a con is a con is a con.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

True or false Weed...
510 knots at sea level produces the same dynamic pressure effects as 1.42 Mach at 30,000 feet.

So sorry, did not see this question until now, when I was alerted to it (from another source).
Answer: False
MACH is MACH. Period. Mach is mach is mach.......
Some (few) deluded individuals, usually associated with some who claim to be "pilots" for some so-called "truth" attempt to muddy the waters, and spout utter Bravo Sierra in order to drive trafffic to their (HIS) silly website......a con is a con is a con is a con.

Read the question properly Weed...
You're delusional to think the same velocity/mach produces the same "dynamic pressure effect" at different altitudes....

You will look very silly If you do not alter that stance...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Here Weed, a bit of reading from your favorite site NASA..

Maybe read up a little before you answer my question..

That way you hopefully wont look silly again.

In particular, the aerodynamic forces acting on an object as it moves through the air are directly proportional to the dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure is therefore used in the definition of the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient.[.ex]
www.grc.nasa.gov...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Real pilots use autopilot, often on landing approach as well. Professional pilots agree, the plane exhibits a behaviour, as if it was on Autopilot. The Receiver or "pod" on the underbelly of the fuselage suggests a system was in place to control the plane from the ground.

reply to post by Cassius666

Real pilots use autopilot, often on landing approach as well.

So? It is known, unequivocally, that the hijackers utilized the A/P on American 77 and United 93. Since we do not have the SSFDRs from American 11 and United 175, there is no confirmed information, but it can be inferred similarly.

In the first two confirmed readouts of A/P usage by the hijackers, the A/P is used merely for the same reason that ALL pilots use it ---- it is a tool, and allows a person to not be required to pay as keen attention to the airplane. That is all.....it is no more "precise" than they way it is designed, and the manner in which the controls that operate it are used or programmed.

Professional pilots agree, the plane exhibits a behaviour, as if it was on Autopilot.

Now, you are just making STUFF up. That is a bogus assertion.

The Receiver or "pod" on the underbelly of the fuselage suggests a system was in place to control the plane from the ground.

Absolute rubbish. There was no "Receiver", nor "pod" on the underbelly. Period.

And, in the case of the filmed behavior of United 175, and its final angle of bank at impact, it is OBVIOUS that the autopilot was NOT engaged.

The autopilot will not exceed 30° bank angles.

reply to post by backinblack

You're delusional to think the same velocity/mach produces the same "dynamic pressure effect" at different altitudes....

Now, you are just attempting (and failing) to muddy the details, and unethically ascribing words to me, by inference....inference that YOU MADE UP!!!

(And to those who awarded stars, you may wish to feel embarrassed, now....after reading and, hopefully, learning somehting).....


YOU claim you have acquired your pilot certificate, down there in Australia? Of course, being of rather low experience, I wouldn't expect you to understand.....seeing how it is you LACK the actual, practical hands-on knowledge of the high-altitude, high-speed regime.


You (and the nuts for truth people, any of them who try this "dynamic pressure" nonsense) are comparing apples to oranges, and fooling the gullible and layperson.


At Sea Level, and 510 knots indicated (KIAS...or KCAS, close enough that the difference is irrelevant) the Mach # is (@Standard Day temps) 0.7795805 (A Mach # to only two significant digits is sufficient. SO, it is M0.78 ---- or, just Mach .78, or "Mach Point Seven Eight", or "Mach Decimal Seven Eight" (many ways to write it, and express it verbally in routine operation).

CAS/Mach/TAS Conversions

(Type "700" in the Altitude box, and "510" in the CAS box, then click "Compute Mach/TAS")

Now, which altitude did you use earlier, with this "dynamic pressure" red-herring, that you don't fully understand, even as you Google it like mad?? Was it "30,000 feet"? OK, let's use that, now....in the same conversion program, above.


This time, after the changed altitude, simply type in "0.78" in the Mach entry box. Click "Compute CAS/TAS"

The True Air Speed is now? BINGO!!!! Looky, looky, looky!!!

469.67 Knots (Let's call it 460 Knots)



OK, now the fun begins......put "510" in the TAS box. (To match the "dynamic pressure" concept, just to put it to bed). Then, click "Compute CAS/Mach"

You can see the results, if you try it....that Mach number is now just a bit over the Mmo....FULLY within the airplane's ability to fly there, AND even to be exceeded, as shown in the flight testing The Mmo is NOT a "drop dead" speed, in any way, shape or form.......




Although the video resolution is poor, hard to read the instruments....I hear the right seater say "Three Six Two".

That would be the speed indicated, according to his judgement, when the OverSpeed Master Warning System activated. 360 Knots is the accepted point for the System to alert to an overspeed condition. It will also trigger referencing to Mach Speed, IF at such altitudes where Mach has priority over KCAS.

The fact that the VMO pointer was still showing "360 knots" as a "limit", and had not yet changed to reflect higher altitudes, tells me that they did that test at somewhere well below 30,000 feet. The VMO pointer will stay at 360 Knots until somewhere above about 23,000 to 25,000....where it is computed, by the ADC (Air Data Computer) and displayed accordingly on the instruments.


(I am, frankly, surprised that you continue with this baloney, since you claim to be somewhat familiar with aviating. Perhaps you have not enqured, at your Flight School, of any others there who have more experience? Or, have you already, and still prefer to play games???)


Here was an interesting discussion (from apparently a Canadian source) comparing the FAA and CAA standards used, in determining their approach to airplane operation (for the B-767-300 specifically):

Mmo: CAA versus FAA

The Boeing 767 has a Maximum Dive Mach Number (Md) of 0.91. For certification, the FAA and CAA apply different methods when determining the aircraft's Maximum Cruise Mach Number (Mmo):

FAA
For the FAA, Mc must not be greater than Md - 0.05M.

Thus for FAA certified aircraft, the Boeing 767 has a maximum cruise mach number (Mmo) of 0.86M. (Md minus 0.05)

CAA
However, for CAA certified aircraft, the margin between Mc and Md must allow the aircraft to encounter a head-on gust of 45 ft per sec, without exceeding Md, at the lowest altitude (25,000 ft) where Vmo and Mmo are coincident. At the declared altitude of 25,000 ft, 45 ft per sec equates to 0.07M.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Mate you do talk a lot of crap..

If there was that little difference, as you insist, in dynamic pressure at different altitudes,
then airlines would NOT bother flying at over 30000' where the atmosphere in much thinner..
Remember what NASA said Weed and I think they know a damn site more than you..

In particular, the aerodynamic forces acting on an object as it moves through the air are directly proportional to the dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure is therefore used in the definition of the lift coefficient and the drag coefficient.

You are really loosing all credibility mate...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by backinblack

 

I agree in part..
They certainly don't need a big attached pod to remote control a plane..
You'd be lucky to notice any difference at all.

So how to the "lasers from outer space" fit into the picture with remote controlled airplanes? Your speculation doesn't have even a microbe of tangible proof to back up the claim, so Judy Woods own zero-tangible-proof speculation of secret orbital energy weapons platforms is every bit as valid as yours.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by backinblack

 

I agree in part..
They certainly don't need a big attached pod to remote control a plane..
You'd be lucky to notice any difference at all.

So how to the "lasers from outer space" fit into the picture with remote controlled airplanes? Your speculation doesn't have even a microbe of tangible proof to back up the claim, so Judy Woods own zero-tangible-proof speculation of secret orbital energy weapons platforms is every bit as valid as yours.

Mate, you continually spamming the same crap that probably originated from disinfo agents to muddy the waters is getting a little boring..

How about debating what I said instead of your usual crap??

I can honestly say I have NEVER mentioned the BS you are talking about..

Originally posted by backinblack

Mate, you continually spamming the same crap that probably originated from disinfo agents to muddy the waters is getting a little boring..

Nope, the "lasers from outer space" claim came from physicist and materials engineer Dr. Judy Wood, who has the distinction of being one of the very few conspiracy proponents who actually brought their claims to trial. If you're genuinely claiming SHE out of all people is a disinfo agent then you conspiracy people have certifiably lost all touch with reality

Did it ever occur to you that rather than her lasers from outer space claims are muddying the waters, it's really the case that her lasers from outer space AS WELL AS your remote controlled planes claims are both muddying the waters?

How about debating what I said instead of your usual crap??

You have said nothing to debate. All you stated is that remote controlled planes don't require external pods, which is probably true. The statement doesn't remotely back up the claim that the planes were remote controlled in any way, shape, or form. I am therefore pointing out that if you do not require tangible proof to back your claims up then neither does Judy Wood.

You forget, sir, that the burden of proof isn't on me. The burden of proof is on you conspiracy people.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You have said nothing to debate. All you stated is that remote controlled planes don't require external pods, which is probably true. The statement doesn't remotely back up the claim that the planes were remote controlled in any way, shape, or form. I am therefore pointing out that if you do not require tangible proof to back your claims up then neither does Judy Wood.

You forget, sir, that the burden of proof isn't on me. The burden of proof is on you conspiracy people

No, you forget sir that I did NOT make any claims other than the one YOU seem to agree with..

So why you suddenly replied to ME with a rant about holograms and space weapons I can only conclude is some attempt to spam your claims with NO GOOD REASON..

And what conspiracies have I stated Dave??

Originally posted by backinblack
No, you forget sir that I did NOT make any claims other than the one YOU seem to agree with..

So why you suddenly replied to ME with a rant about holograms and space weapons I can only conclude is some attempt to spam your claims with NO GOOD REASON.

And what conspiracies have I stated Dave??

A) My original statement wasn't to you. It was to Cassius to point out that he's basing his premise on bogus information about pods on the planes that was introduced by some conspiracy web site or another. You were the one who replied to me. Unfortunately I can't prove that anymore as the moderators interpreted that as a personal attack for some reason and they yanked it.

B) my second reply was to your assertion that planes don't need pods to be radio controlled, to which I essentially pointed out that the whole radio controlled planes bit has zero tangible evidence and is therefore equal in credibility to every other speculative claim with zero tangible evidence, specifially the lasers from outer space bit. Take exception to the statement as you see fit, but at the end of the day the statement is still true.

I never post without a good reason, and the good reason I have now is this- to point out that these conspiracy claims have zero tangible evidence to back them up. I went through the last few pages of the discussion here and quickly saw it was nothing but a slugfest of desperate straw grasping over air densities, temperatures, wind speeds, and other frivolous issues that have no impact on the events of the day, let alone being evidence for anything one way or the other.

Am I really supposed to accept that that there's some sinister conspiracy going on to take over the world entirely because the air density along the coastline is different from air density inland?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Am I really supposed to accept that that there's some sinister conspiracy going on to take over the world entirely because the air density along the coastline is different from air density inland?

Obviously you don't bother reading posts or that stupid comment would not have been posted..

Air densities etc have more relevance to 9.11 than you ranting on with your spamming of crap..
It's actually asking REAL questions and seeking tangible evidence..

Originally posted by backinblack

You are really loosing all credibility mate...

Its funny isnt it? Whenever I join a 9/11 thread we have these same old personas (those of us genuinely interested in getting to the truth all know who they are) getting lambasted yet again by some other member

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by backinblack

You are really loosing all credibility mate...

Its funny isnt it? Whenever I join a 9/11 thread we have these same old personas (those of us genuinely interested in getting to the truth all know who they are) getting lambasted yet again by some other member

Yes and I wouldn't mind so much if they got some new material...
It's like hearing the same joke over and over..

Originally posted by Cassius666
Real pilots use autopilot, often on landing approach as well. Professional pilots agree, the plane exhibits a behaviour, as if it was on Autopilot. The Receiver or "pod" on the underbelly of the fuselage suggests a system was in place to control the plane from the ground.

Would that control be 'line of sight" or by satellite? Those are your two choices, and with line of sight it would easily lose contact at the low altitudes it flew, and if by satellite why then would they have the pod on the bottom where it would lose the satellite signal? Plus you would then need a much bigger conspiracy to include satellites.

People need to progress their beliefs a little further than just stating something like “there was a pod on the bottom to control it”