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: 17
141
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



The following is called a V-G diagram or Flight Envelope. The speeds for a 767 have been inserted by definition and regulations as required by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)


Or, more precisely, "I found this diagram on the internet and kind of fudge in some numbers to try and support my ridiculous contentions'.

Good luck with that!




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


hooper...YOU know, I know, and most of our audience knows what the sock-puppet named "Tiffany" is doing...and HE/(she) knows too.

This is an "argument from incredulity" type tactic --- appealing to those who are NOT well-versed in flying, and aviation and especially large commercial passenger jets, and how they really fly, and how they really FEEL to fly.

Let's see: So far, the same old tired claims, same set of tools fromt he same rusty toolkit. I see even the FAKED G-diagram was dusted off,a nd trotted out!

The "appeal" to the alleged poor flying skills, too --- yet again. The irrelevant attempt to compare the lower operating SPEEDS of a Cessna 172, and somehow plant the idea in non-pilots' minds that speed differences matter at all, in the case of just pointing an airplane in the sky, and flying it to a target! (HINT: It's a bit easier when going faster).


Still rambling on about the silly (the airplalne will instantly fall apart as soon as it passes ONE knot above VMO) nonsense, too. Hence, the aforementioned FAKED diagram. (I say "FAKED", ladies and gentlemen, because the 'chart' presented does not represent an official Boeing document, RE: the B-757/767. It is a "mash-up", a home-made creation, from the fertile minds of the PfT 'crew'. A rather generic diagram, an airspeed/G-force envelope depiction from another airplane, with the 'numbers' for the B-757/767 types of airplanes substituted for the other airplane's numbers).

Finally...I smell a sorta trick question...like bait dangling in the water, with the "challenge" about airplanes that have exceeded their VMO and survived...the caveat "controllable" has been used, repeatedly. THAT is the "trap", and 'Tiffany' is sitting like a spider in 'her' lair, ready to pounce, methinks.

So, fully aware, here goes (let the mayhem ensue!):


The passengers experienced up to 6G’s during the in flight upset before the flight crew was able to get the aircraft under control and back to level flight at 5,000 feet. This 34,000 foot drop took 63 seconds which to it passengers seemed like an eternity. The aircraft had a maximum speed of about 0.96 mach at 31,800 feet. The crew later landed at Detroit metro after discovering that they had damaged landing gear, a missing leading edge flap, flight spoiler, and other missing parts.


That was TWA 741 (not to be confused witht he same flight number, and the hijacking drama in the Middle East).

4 April, 1979...nighttime...JFK to MSP.

Source for further reading.


A few points: Any 'damage' mentioned was NOT merely as a result of the excessive airspeeds. When you read the body of the story, you will see that the entire incident was instigated by the crew's (Captain's) decision to "break the rules", and employ a "trick" that was peculiar to the 727.

"Hoot" Gibson, the Captain, seemed to consider himself 'God's Gift to Aviation', it appears. In effect, though, he endangered himself, crew and passengers by essentionally condicting a sort of "flight test" scenario. Of course, his intent was 'merely' to eke out a little more climb performance, at his given weight, to reach a higher altitude, and lower fuel burn rate.

Problem was, 'Sky King' did all this when the Flight Engineer was in the back, taking a leak, getting coffee, whatever. AND the other two geniuses didn't BRIEF him, or let him in on it...he sits down, looks around, and sees some circuit breakers are popped. Back then, most pilots just pushed them back in (older airplanes, things pop out, transient electrical glitches was the thinking...shrug shoulders, pop them back in). Today, we aren't so cavalier, especially with modern mostly electronic airplanes and systems. The REASON for the C/B to be out is thought through...we don't just re-set them without some contemplation. SOME are specifically prohibited, per the AFM, until back on the ground.


So, the C/Bs that were out were the control circuits for the leading edge flaps/slats...since "Hoot" was mucking around with the flaps, and using the technique mentioned in the link. Once the C/Bs were re-set, the slats tried to extend, and TAHT is when all hell broke loose.

The "controllability" aspect was instigated by THAT reason ... the implication that dropping the gear allowed control to be regained is likely a coincidence. It was when the pieces of slat finally broke away, that control was restored. AND, they would NOT have been damaged if had not been commanded to extend at speeds well above their limits.

The crew stuck to their story, and tried to blame some "unknown" reason...either that, or lose their careers, was the choice they faced.

Note this bit:


The aircraft had a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and it was undamaged. 21 minutes of the 30 minute tape were blank. The remaining 9 minutes of the tape had good fidelity but pertained only to the flightcrew conversations after the aircraft was on the ground at Detroit.


They erased the CVR after landing, to hide any incriminating sounds and evidence.

Still, the airplane survived...damaged, possibly exceeded Mach 1, got close is known. [***]

Funny....new airliner designs, in Flight Testing trials, are ALSO routinely tested at near MAch 1...WELL above their published VMO. AND, they remain in 'control', and come back to land and continue tests.....

So much for the "crew" at PfT.....Crediblity? = Zero!

~~~~~

[***]

BTW, found this (somewhat) cheesy video, made by CBS News...with a bit of a "re-enactment", embillished by the need of the guys to keep their story of "I Dunno What Happened" alive. "Hoot"s call to "Get 'em up! Get 'em up!" to me means he was referring to the flaps, NOT the speedbrakes. The speedbrake handle is very convenient to the left seat, and takes only a moment for the Captain to reach over and grab the handle. The FLAP lever is a bit farther away, and THAT would be easier for the right seat pilot....especially when you understand the so-called "gates" that are built in to the mechanism.

These were intentionally designed "stops", to make moving the Flap handle directly through the "Flaps 2" selector postion difficult...because of the nature of the slat sequencing, in that airplane. Older guys, like me, with experience in the airplane know what I mean....

!! Found two photos of the 727's flap position selector and handle...(top of handle is lopped off, in close-up photo)...and second photo for the over-all layout, viewed from farther back. You can see the mechanical "gate" at Flaps 2, and there's another one at Flaps 25 (for a different reason...that is the position and setting you want on a go-around, when flaps have been set to 30 or 40 already...the handle "stops" there, and must be intentionally lifted, and moved again to continue to retract the flaps/slats..):





Anyway, the video --- skip the first 1:30 of useless introduction garbage:












[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I agree. I think this is primarliy bait to get traffic on their websites.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I agree. I think this is primarliy bait to get traffic on their websites.


No doubt. Anytime things get slow over at the PfT clubhouse, "Tiffany" stops by here to roil the waters and post multiple spammy links to his webpage.

His quotes are becoming legend.....as Weed reminded us of, that an aircraft will break as soon as it reaches its design limits. Period.

Or his latest about how the Pentagon 757, at 90 tons and at 750 feet per second should have acted like a 10 lb radio controlled model traveling at 20 feet per second when it hit the wall.

Funny how he never answers the important questions - like the two I asked on his last visit about if he could ask his "team" of "expert" "pilots":


1) Do they agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.


He won't/can't answer, let alone ask his "team" of "expert" "pilots".

If he/the say "yes" on question 1, they prove Cap't Bob as un-credible. If he/they say "no", they prove themselves un-credible.

If he/they say "disagree" to question 2, they will have to explain why, which they will not be able to.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by weemadmental
 


seriously thats been what i cant get all along i was standing right there with like twenty thousand other people proly alot more and these people wont stop with their statistics i mean really people we all didnt hallucinate we arent stupid it was a perfectly clear day what the hell are you debating ?

it happened it was so fd up to watch and your arguing over structural integrity numbers the planes were jet liners as stated not covert anything ?
disguised or whatever we all us real witnesses not your internet cohorts it HAPPENNED! what are you even talking about it makes you look crazy


holy moley lord have mercy you are so frustrating



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


oooooo now i get this tiffany lady and her incredible willingness to spout endless mindless drivle but not concede to real witnesses and what we saw rather tampered diagrams


IT IS HER WEBSITE SHE IS PROMOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I just posted a video that shows an a actual pilot(that means he knows what he's talking about)that flew the actual planes from 9/11.That pilot backs up Tiffani's word.

Why do you keep asking for proof even though it's in front of you?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
reply to post by hooper
 


I just posted a video that shows an a actual pilot(that means he knows what he's talking about)that flew the actual planes from 9/11.That pilot backs up Tiffani's word.

Why do you keep asking for proof even though it's in front of you?


What proof? How does that prove anything? Did he say, as the sock puppet contends, that when a plane exceeds its Vmo it instantly falls apart? I don't even know what sock puppet is trying to prove other than link people to his/her website so that he/she can sell advertising space.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
So you think she shouldn't have a website?

Amazing how these debunkers see actual pilots on video that agree with her and flew 2 of the actual planes that were supposedly used on 9/11 that back Tiffany up and they ignore it.

Then you debunkers keep saying people saw the plane hit....no #!No one is disputing that.But they weren't your normal 757's.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


"Did he say, as the sock puppet contends, that when a plane exceeds its Vmo it instantly falls apart"?

Um..yes he did.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX
 


Well then, he, like the sock puppet, proves nothing. Sorry, try again. Maybe try and actually prove something. Like try and explain how and why the plane falls apart.

Just out of curiosity - exactly what did he say?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
I just posted a video that shows an a actual pilot(that means he knows what he's talking about)that flew the actual planes from 9/11.That pilot backs up Tiffani's word.

Why do you keep asking for proof even though it's in front of you?



And here are several more. These were posted on page 12, but they don't know how to debate the facts or the topic so instead they call out their Obfuscation Brigade to mire the thread down into pointless rants. When they cannot debate the facts (which is often), they focus on character assassination. It never works.




Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


NASA Flight Director Confirms Aircraft Speed As" Elephant In The Room"


Credentials of the above -

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career


weedwacker, trebor, et al, we're still waiting for you to address the issues from page 12.

Again -

Let us know when you find an aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 120-150 knots, exceed it's Maneuvering speeds by 220 knots, pulled G's, and was precisely controllable to hit a target with 25'-33' margins for error. Further, let us know when you can find a pilot who can perform such control, yet was unable to control a 172 at 65 knots.


Trebor, weedwhacker - Do you feel it is "easy" to control an aircraft 150 knots above Vmo? Do you feel it will be stable?

Why do you refuse to answer these questions for over 5 pages now?



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Still rambling on about the silly (the airplalne will instantly fall apart as soon as it passes ONE knot above VMO) nonsense, too.


Read again slowly weedwhacker - from page 16.

Again, there has never been an aircraft positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots was controllable, or survived.

Many have exceeded their Vmo by 20-30-50-70 knots... Many of these aircraft suffered in flight structural failure. Some of these aircraft needed 30,000 feet to regain control. Many crashed.

150 knots over Vmo is absurd.

This is why there has not been one verified pilot to place his name on claims that such speeds over Vmo are "easy" or even possible, especially for alleged Hijackers who couldn't even control a 172 at 65 knots.






Hence, the aforementioned FAKED diagram. (I say "FAKED", ladies and gentlemen, because the 'chart' presented does not represent an official Boeing document, RE: the B-757/767.


Are you saying this diagram does not represent the V speeds as set by Boeing?




If so, you would be wrong.

You sure you're a pilot weedwhacker?

Read and learn something about the V-G diagram and the Flight Envelope.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hope this helps.

If you know the V-Speeds, you can draw your own V-G diagram (well, maybe YOU can't, but a student pilot can
)

The rest of your rant proves that you cannot find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and remained in control.

I especially got a kick out of the fact you actually posted an aircraft which needed 34,000 feet to recover from an upset.

Sorry, the WTC attack aircraft only had about 2,000 on its final leg to the towers.

Max operating for the 727 is .90M at altitude. The max speed you quoted(.96M) is less than 35 knots over Max operating, and it caused in flight structural damage, loss of control, and needed 34,000 feet to recover.

Do you know how to calculate EAS weedwhacker? Need help?

Again weedwhacker, let us know when you find a positively identified aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and remained in control.

So far, you fail.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Funny how he never answers the important questions - like the two I asked on his last visit about if he could ask his "team" of "expert" "pilots":


1) Do they agree with the statement:

When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

and

2) Agree or disagree:

The only limitation to an aeronautical platform's speed is the power output of its engines.


He won't/can't answer, let alone ask his "team" of "expert" "pilots".


And yet you still fail to provide a source link for the above quotes so we can read them in context, knowing that you like to cherry pick OUT of context.

Anytime you provide a link trebor to the above sources of your quotes, feel free.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



And yet you still fail to provide a source link for the above quotes so we can read them in context, knowing that you like to cherry pick OUT of context.


Why do I keep thinking about a kettle and pot when I saw YOU post something like this.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Are you saying this diagram does not represent the V speeds as set by Boeing?


One way to settle that - ask one of them 1000's of flying experts over at your favorite link for the actual diagram from the actual plane. Should be able to do that with the snap of your fingers with all them experts over there.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


YAWN!!!

This is the exact SAME post!! From earlier in the thread....continually posting the same junque' doesn't magically make it true and correct....

Why all the SPAM, SAM??

````~~~~~```` Well, of course not "exactly" the same, since you tailor each to whomever you're responding to...but, here it is, same linky-dinkys:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

....and you DID IT AGAIN!! ON this page, just above! With the bogus "VG diagram". [***]

Do people really, really still fall for these sorts of shenanigans?



[***] I think I may have found where "Tiffany", apparently our resident Private Pilot, with limited skills and lacking full knowledge and understanging of the Big Jets, got "her" 'VG diagram':

Link to the "Free Online" Private Pilot Ground School section on the topic.

FWIW....now that I've found this, I'll review it...but, based on first glance, I suggest it might be required reading for our non-pilots in the audience, to hopefully help them "spool up" on a few things....(Like that? "spool up"?? Jet engine term...)

Be happy to, free of charge, answer any sticking points and questions. After all, I AM a CFI, and ground instructor too.

_____________

BTW....how's that membership roster coming along, over at "PfT"?? Got a boat-load or REAL, current active airline pilots from ALPA, APA and SWPA all signed on yet? I mean, there's a reservoir of tens of thousands...you'd think that IF what the PfT is presenting is actually true, then there'd be tremendous outrage, and incredible support....but, alas, we don't see any of that, do we??



[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
It's simple weedwhacker, address the questions and issues, and I'll stop repeating them.

I know you would rather such questions be flushed into the ATS server maze of 1's and 0's, never to be heard from again. It is clear you and your cohorts would rather drag this thread into an off topic flame war, but unfortunately for you, I'll keep ignoring the obfuscation and keep updating the topical questions on almost every new page in between your rants, until you answer.

Perhaps we already have your answer? Considering you have been evading for more than 5 pages? The fact is, you can't answer. You don't even know that a V-G diagram can be drawn/plotted if you know the V-Speeds.


But, if you at some time feel you can answer, please feel free.

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control? Do you feel it will be stable? Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

Take your time weedwhacker, no rush. We been waiting for 5 pages, we are patient.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX

I just posted a video that shows an a actual pilot(that means he knows what he's talking about)that flew the actual planes from 9/11.That pilot backs up Tiffani's word.

Why do you keep asking for proof even though it's in front of you?


Because every time we here him say "Pulling 5 6 7 Gs" all we can do is laugh. It makes it hard to take his opinion seriously.
If he made a new video saying "Whoops, SORRY, I should of said less than 2 Gs" then I would have some respect for him.
Until then he is just another one of many PFT G force jokes.

We love it when Rob and the PFT start talking Gs. Maybe Tiffany knows some G force jokes. I notice Tiffany is just saying "pulling Gs" and not sticking her neck out by putting a number to it.

Tiffany is definitely a lot wiser than Rob.



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


All of these 'fans' of the PfT "crew", who lap up every word, as if it's gospel?

Willfully remaining ignorant, maybe...I cannot think of a better explanation.

Here, found this video. I'd expect all of you laypersons out there would agree that LANDING is probably a lot harder than...or, just boring holes in the sky, right?

So, here I found these blokes bopping around and having a go...(they must be buddies with the guy who works as a SIM instructor, or something...).

Video is self-explanatory. These guys are NOT pilots...from what I gather, based on their comments, they know next-to-nothing about airplanes.

Couple of things, to listen for: We already have heard that most modern Boeings (I expect maybe also Airbuses) have software that will trigger the verbal warning, when banking over 35 degrees. You can hear that...

...The "Pull Up!" and other warnings, in the same male voice are from the GPWS. (You can Google that).

...Somewhere around the ~6:30 mark a high/low siren? I've tried to find that online, no luck...but there it is. That is associated with the Master Warning, and is heard for various reasons...and it is also used as the "overspeed warning" and the autopilot disconnect warning sound... (as opposed to earlier Boeings, with the so-called 'clacker' for overspeed, and either a different electronic sound (737) or none at all).

~~~~~~

Oopsy, daisy. Forgot the video linky-dink:











[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



new topics




 
141
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join