9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by waypastvne

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.

Based on data provided by the NTSB, Arlington Topography and obstacles, more than 10 G's is required.

Google Video Link

[edit on 24-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by weedwhacker


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

weedwhacker -

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?

If you are really a pilot, why are you unable to plot your own V-G diagram when the V Speeds are known?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Do you feel the following V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?



Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

Take your time weedwhacker, no rush. We been waiting for 6 pages, we are patient.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Horse.....um..... (feathers!).


I was just down by the ole' Pentagon this morning. Lookin' at the "topography" and such, gettin' the lay o' the land, as it were....

Gee....imagine this? From my window on the eighth floor of the Marriott Residence Inn, there on Army/Navy Drive, is a clear view to the West, and a good angle on the side of the Pentagon that was hit by AAL 77.

What's more, it's easy to see just HOW the terrain actually lays, the angles, the elevations....you can "eyeball" it, pretty much. Don't need none o'that made-up maths from the PfT "crew"....and their pardners, the CIT.

Goin' down, to the ground level, even BETTER way to see how the land lays, and flows....no need for no "10-G" pull, no sirree Bob! (Or...no sirree Rob!)

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Based on data provided by the FDR less than 2G's is required.


www.ntsb.gov...

reply to post by waypastvne


I don't reckon "Tiffany" can fully comprehend the Attachment #1 in the NTSB link, there...the listing of parameters recorded. All ~12 pages...my, my, them's a lot, huh??

A lot of acronyms that will be foreign-sounding to those not trained on the airplane, or any other large modern airliners.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Based on data provided by the FDR less than 2G's is required.


www.ntsb.gov...

Now try downloading the actual data sets...

Download NTSB Data

.....and viewing the film above based on the data set provided by the NTSB.

waypastevne -

Since it appears weedwhacter doesn't have the aptitude to answer these questions, perhaps you can take a stab at it?

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?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Do you feel the above V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Why is there no mention of ground effect when they are "plotting" their g load diagram, also the power to weight ratios at this level and drag resistance at ground level, this all has an effect on aircraft performance and so g loading wouldn't be so hard with the cushion effect, some pilots these guys must be.

The implication of what you're saying Tiff, is that the planes were reinforced in some way. (That's leaving aside NPt which I suspect even you might baulk at).

Why would they do this?

I suspect your answer will be that you don't know, but that "it's just another thing that shows the OS isn't right..." But I'm interested in the implications of what you suggest. Care to look into those?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


dude she has know idea beyond what google says as do most of these made up truthers but just give up they are not rational and will never get it....

the ideas they come up with have no conclusions and this conspiracy is the product of under educated society projecting other anger into this terrible day and now WAR! it truly is sad the moentum it has gathered o well for common sense they have there list of WITNESSES or whomever???? just more stupid people who are very confused .


im just gonna give up i know you know they will just never know

What about Joseph Kieth?A retired aerospace engineer who designed the "shaker system" for Boeing?

"The air is so thick that when the engine max the rotation of the turbine the air..they can't suck the air in and the thing starts acting like a brake(which would SLOW it down)the plane maxes out the specs on the plane...the power plant will max out at 700 feet at 330 mph..in other words they can't fly that fast..AND the plane will begin to shake itself apart at 220 mph at that altitude...so if the plane was flying at that altitude it would have shook itself apart before it hit the building"-Joseph Kieth

www.youtube.com...

I guess he's just another truther/strawman/conspiracy theorist...this/that anything but right...right??

I'm just curious...do you debunkers have any pilots or engineers or any qualified person with credentials that say 757's can fly at those speeds at those altitudes?

Don't forget all the weight from the passengers and the shaking and the adrenaline and the blood from the pilots would be everywhere(you can't simulate that)..it would make it uncontrollable.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX




I actually had to listen, just to be sure you typed this verbatim, from what he said:

...AND the plane will begin to shake itself apart at 220 mph at that altitude...

You did!! That is EXACTLY what he said.

And, well...how can I say this gently? Well I can't. UNLESS he misspoke....because, if he MEANT that, then (even 'Tiffany' will have to agree) he is a NUTTER!

Let's recap what he alleged: Based on how it was phrased, it appears that this so-called "expert" thinks that a Boeing 767 in level flight, at an altitude somewhere between 700 and 1,000 feet AGL, will "begin to shake itself apart at 220 MPH". Did I get the gist correct?

Feel free to tell me if not....

Just to clarify....he said "MPH"....to my mind, I read that as "Statute" miles per hour. We use knots, or "Nautical" miles per hour in aviation.

Converting statute to nautical, or "MPH" to knots, we get 191 KNOTS!

Folks....191 knots is BELOW the "clean wing" airspeed for both the 757 and 767....UNLESS nearly completely empty, and minium fuel (or, very low total gross weight).

Typically, some airlines (mine) use "canned" speeds, for maneuvering references....they are also calculated by the FMS. In the 757, 210 knots is typically the "clean minimum maneuvering" --- or, the speed below which we will have to extend the slats and flaps.

I am here to tell you (and any of you who have FLOWN recently, and survived it) that NONE of my airplanes ever began to "shake apart" at those airspeeds....nor even, if he meant 220 knots either.

IN FACT, from takeoff up to 10,000 feet, on the climb out, we accelerate to 250 knots!!! After the flats/slats are cleaned up (retracted) on schedule, after takeoff. Above 10,000, then the climb speed depends...it IS higher...and will vary based on the VNAV mode (if used), ATC restrictions (if imposed) or personal preferences....airplanes climb good at between 290 and 310 knots.

On descents....up above 10,000 I've often, many many times, had it up to the "barber pole" (that's 'VMO'). In International waters, OUTSIDE the 12-mile limit from the shore....there IS NO SPEED 'LIMIT' below 10,000 feet, as there is in most jurisdictions overland.

Airplane does just fine, at...oh, 2,000 feet and 310 knots. Just fine, thank you very much.

I think this guy (he does sound a bit long in the tooth?) should be put out to pasture, if not already.


______________

Typo, typo....where's the typo? Oh, right next to "Waldo"...









[edit on 24 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
On descents....up above 10,000 I've often, many many times, had it up to the "barber pole" (that's 'VMO').

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?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Do you feel the above V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


You know what I find ironic?

These guys are always railing people for the slightest speculation, yet have no problem harassing you as if they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a man. Even when police have suspicions they act with more restraint than that.

I have to be honest, I don't know who is behind any of these posts, and I don't care to tell you all that I don't take anything any of you say about yourselves for granted, weedwhacker being a pilot included. I just put up with it for the sake of argument.

But I think the real problem is none of these guys want to even entertain the thought that they're making complete fools of themselves before a chick that looks like nothing they'll be bagging any time soon.

Notice it's the truthers who like to suck up to Tiffany as though "she" might actually let them "bag" her at some point...

I guess if your radar is off in one area then it's probably off for everything.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I've read that some of the velocity limitations below 10,000 feet are related to the fact that the windshields on the planes are not rated for bird strikes over a certain speed. So its not that the plane will shake apart because it is going at 400 mph at 700 feet, but because if a bird were to strike the windshield at that speed then it would break and, of course, bird strikes are much less likely above 10,000.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Nope. Its something only a suicidal maniac would risk. "Easy" is a very poorly defined word and very relative.

Do you feel it will be stable?

Nope. See above. "Stable" is poorly defined and relative.

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

Nope. Unlike you, we do not have access to the flight records of all the flights of all aircraft in human history - when are you going to share that database?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Yes. The designer has to give you the definition for those curves, unique to each plane design and actually would be unique to every single aircraft as reason dictates that no two craft, regardless of effort, are exactly the same.

Do you feel the above V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Nope. All of the them.

Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

You don't know - do you?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The implication of what you're saying Tiff, is that the planes were reinforced in some way. (That's leaving aside NPt which I suspect even you might baulk at).

Why would they do this?

I suspect your answer will be that you don't know, but that "it's just another thing that shows the OS isn't right..." But I'm interested in the implications of what you suggest. Care to look into those?

As I thought.

No.

reply to post by hooper


Since you asked....and for clarity...RE: bird strikes.

Actually, the airspeed limit below 10,000 is for ATC's benefit, mostly...more traffic, denser concentrations, and just makes it easier for controllers to handle. They often slow us down even more, when their airspace/workload gets really busy.

Modern windshields are quite tough....electrically heated at all times (unless there is a fault, and it fails for some reason). When heated, they are a bit "flexible", and more resiliant. (One or more layers sandwiched in are plastic, and are part of the heat conductive elements).

Don't have the need to look it up, usually...except my personal exeperience, in a DC-10 (many years back) saw some arcing, in the electrical connections @ the window corner. Turned off power to that window....we were at altitude, and the thermal shock meant that a few seconds later --- 'THWACK!' ---- one pane (sandwiched) of glass shattered.

The limitations in the book said only to limit speed to 250 knots, below 10,000 feet! Which is SOP, anyway, in controlled airspace. (Implication, of course, was that when window heat is operating normally there is NO speed restriction, aerodynamically, except of course the published VMO).

BTW...while it isn't going to happen in US airspace, in many other parts of the World one may ask ATC for variance, and they can grant requests to accelerate above 250 knots, even below 10,000.

OH....and one more thing about the "250 below 10,000" rule, I keep forgetting to mention: SOME larger, heavier airplanes (B-747, B-777, A-340, A-380...etc) will often, when heavily loaded by so heavy that their MINIMUM clean airspeed is above 250 knots! The rules allow for that....the requirement is 250 knots, or 'minimum required' for safe operation with flaps/slats retracted.

Originally posted by hooper

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Nope. Its something only a suicidal maniac would risk. "Easy" is a very poorly defined word and very relative.

Do you feel it will be stable?

Nope. See above. "Stable" is poorly defined and relative.

"Easy to control" and "Stable" go hand in hand as every student pilot learns from day 1.

But I thank you for being honest and at least trying to answer the questions. It's more than can be said of your cohorts.

You are correct, aircraft which exceed their Vmo are not "easy to control", nor "stable". This is why limits are set based on flight and wind tunnel tests and why so many highly experienced Airline Capts and a NASA Engineer who designs high performance flight control systems put their names on their claims that such an aircraft would be impossible to control, and more speak out after becoming informed, as did the 5 or 6 Pilot/ATS'ers in this thread -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since you feel it is not "easy to control" nor "stable", you and your obfuscation brigade may want to drop your old canard of, "An aircraft is easy to fly once airborne, the hard part is landing".

As for definition of aircraft stability and control. Click here. It is clearly defined.

www.sti.nasa.gov...

Google "Aircraft Stability" if you would like to learn more. Keywords you are looking for are Static and Dynamic stability.

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

Nope. Unlike you, we do not have access to the flight records of all the flights of all aircraft in human history - when are you going to share that database?

www.ntsb.gov...

Let us know when you find one.

Thanks!

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Yes. The designer has to give you the definition for those curves, unique to each plane design and actually would be unique to every single aircraft as reason dictates that no two craft, regardless of effort, are exactly the same.

Do you feel the above V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Nope. All of the them.

Do you know the definition of Vra/Va, Vmo, Vd? What are they for the 767?

You don't know - do you?

Thank you for once again demonstrating you have less knowledge than a student pilot.

Google "Flight Envelope" and learn.

Here's a hint -




weedwhacker, do you agree with the above assessment made by hooper?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]