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: 20
141
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Oh dear. You'll notice I didn't say there wasn't a government "story" (simplistic term, but I suppose we'd best keep things simple.) I said that the notion of an "OS" that Truthers push is a straw man.


Explain to me how you would define the official story.

Here's some help:


official [əˈfɪʃəl]
adj
1. of or relating to an office, its administration, or its duration
2. sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority an official statement
3. appointed by authority, esp for some special duty


www.thefreedictionary.com...


Don't tell me the dictionaries are controlled by truthers too.

They even give "official statement" as a correct use of the word "official," and you can read for yourself exactly what it means. NIST is an official government agency because the federal government, ie Congress, the Presidency, Judicial, etc. recognizes them as such. That is "official."

Similarly for FEMA, and also the Kean Commission which was also set up by Congressional committee.


So explain to me why these things are NOT official, and explain your conception of what is official if these things aren't.

Let me give you one more definition:


sto·ry 1 (stôr, str)
n. pl. sto·ries
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious


www.thefreedictionary.com...


So the literal definition of "official story":


"An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious," "sanctioned by, recognized by, or derived from authority".

(Look, I just proved that I understand algebraic substitutions too.
)

Now "debunk" this damned truther dictionary.

You are so far into denial you won't even accept the definitions of words anymore. Just like Bill Clinton asking for the definition of the word "is." Pathetic.



And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Tiffany isn't quite who she says she is. But I guess if you're used to swallowing bull# in hefty gulps you kind of lose the ability to smell it after a while.


If you can't swallow bull# then why do you believe the official story? And deny the basic definition of the two words?


Also I would like to see what "plenty of evidence" you're talking about.

Because I would wager you won't get very far into it before I can take the same suspicious reasoning you're using and apply it to the government with no alteration at all. But you only accept things one way.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Your welcome.

To your opinion.

But you know you can't have that diagram without the definition of those curves and they come from the designer(s) for each aircraft. You do realize that airplanes aren't the only mechnical devices that have performance diagrams, right? They are not, by a long shot, unique to that industry. But in all cases the designer(s) create the diagrams.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Your welcome.

To your opinion.

But you know you can't have that diagram without the definition of those curves and they come from the designer(s) for each aircraft. You do realize that airplanes aren't the only mechnical devices that have performance diagrams, right? They are not, by a long shot, unique to that industry. But in all cases the designer(s) create the diagrams.


The definition of those "curves" was explained here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, here's a hint.



You just refused to look.

Also, the "curves" are irrelevant for what we are discussing. The "curves" represent an accelerated stall. Do you know what an accelerated stall is? Hint - the speeds we are talking about and reported by the NTSB are outside the Flight Envelope at 1G for a standard 767. Again - the upper and lower curves are irrelevant for this discussion.

This is why I keep thanking you for demonstrating you know less than a student pilot.

You claimed that the 420 knots I plotted for the Vd line is inaccurate.

You are wrong.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Oh, my...the garbage never ends??


Do you know what an accelerated stall is?


I do.

AND, it is totally irrelevant to the flight profiles of AAL 11 and UAL 175.

Still....per the same tactic, try to dazzle your non-pilot audience with the same BS, huh?? :shk:

"Oh, the humanity!".....

_____________________

Oh, almost forgot....just for fun, looking for things with wings that go REAL fast, thought to share this:

Zoom!!


Just for kicks...not the same type airplane, but gives at least an idea for landlubbers, to see those kinds of speeds, at low altitudes AGL.

(Not sure IF it's really "500MPH". And, IF it is, that's statute and not knots, I assume? Anyway, still freakin' fast, yes??)


Ooooh! Found some more goodies!!


Looky:


["I feel the need for speed...."]


(From the description):

Former Space Shuttle Commander Curt Brown of Hudson, Wis., dominated the Jet Class, winning both the gold and silver races in his L-29 "Viper". Curt`s average speed was 507.124 mph.


Note it was the "average" speed...OH, and 507 MPH = ~440 knots.


Just, use the image of those jets, in your mind's eye, and try to compare to the videos of United 175 on 9/11.......






[edit on 25 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You really don't know understand this, do you? Those are the defintions for THOSE curves. Another thing you just clipped off the internet.

All these supposed flight experts and you don't seem to have access to any original material....hmmm. Why don't you ask "Rusty" to get you some actual information.

Here's a challenge by the way - try to post at least four times without spam for the Pffffft website - go ahead I dare you.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Oh, my...the garbage never ends??


Do you know what an accelerated stall is?


I do.

AND, it is totally irrelevant to the flight profiles of AAL 11 and UAL 175.



Yes, that's what I said. Read again. Note the bold and underline.

Also, the "curves" are irrelevant for what we are discussing. The "curves" represent an accelerated stall. Do you know what an accelerated stall is? Hint - the speeds we are talking about and reported by the NTSB are outside the Flight Envelope at 1G for a standard 767. Again - the upper and lower curves are irrelevant for this discussion.

The accelerated stall "curves" are also irrelevant to the alleged AA77 and UA93. But they both exceed the 757 flight envelope by a WIDE margin.


weedwhacker, we are still waiting for you to answer the questions. You have now been evading the questions for 8 pages.

Here they are again.


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?





posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You really don't know understand this, do you? Those are the defintions for THOSE curves. Another thing you just clipped off the internet.


Here is the source for "those curves".

en.wikipedia.org...

Again hooper, if you know the V-Speeds and how a V-G diagram is plotted, you can draw your own for any aircraft.

Student pilots are taught how to do this by their 4th or 5th lesson.

Google "Flight School" in google map mode for your area, schedule a lesson, and go learn something.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


So, student pilots by the 5th lesson are ready to design the performance curve for any aircraft? Uh huh.

So in the colored plot you keep posting, you know the one you cut and paste from Google and then did a little fudging? what is the defintion of those curves?


By the way, nice that you agree that flight 175 was difficult but not impossible. You're getting there. Pretty soon you'll understand the basics of reason and logic and then maybe the conspiracy blinders will slowly start to slip away.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(From the description):

Former Space Shuttle Commander Curt Brown of Hudson, Wis., dominated the Jet Class, winning both the gold and silver races in his L-29 "Viper". Curt`s average speed was 507.124 mph.


Note it was the "average" speed...OH, and 507 MPH = ~440 knots.



Never exceed speed: 820 km/h (442 knots, 510 mph)


Let us know when you find an L-29 which has exceeded 592 knots/693 mph and then you may have an argument when comparing apples to apples.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So in the colored plot you keep posting, you know the one you cut and paste from Google and then did a little fudging? what is the defintion of those curves?


Accelerated stall. It says it right on the graph and it shows how to calculate it for each individual aircraft on the sources I gave you. Click them. I even provided the image for you because I know you refuse to click links. Read it.

And as weedwhacker agrees, those "curves" are irrelevant to this discussion.

Excuse me if I ignore you from now when when you keep repeating the "curves" argument.

There comes a point when you ignore argument with those who just do not have the knowledge. If you have no desire to learn, I have no desire to teach you.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


You really don't know understand this, do you? Those are the defintions for THOSE curves. Another thing you just clipped off the internet.


Wow! As if she didn’t know, where should she copy or “clip” evidence to post, if not the internet?


All these supposed flight experts and you don't seem to have access to any original material....hmmm.


And you do? Why haven’t you posted any?


Here's a challenge by the way - try to post at least four times without spam for the Pffffft website - go ahead I dare you.


I dare you? More school yard antics.
If TiffanyInLA information is wrong, then I have yet to see you “disprove” it.
The best you can do is ridicule her sources; looks to me she knows what she is talking about and can provide credible sources to back her claim. What have you proven so far?




[edit on 25-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Your reading comprehension is, once again....well, I know it isn't faulty.

It is the same M.O. yet again....taking someone's post, and "quote mining" it, to spin in the direction YOU want it to go.

Along the way, completely altering the original intent. Yeah, that's real clever, "Tiffany".


However, except for the fawning sycophants from your vanity website, OTHERS can see what my point was, in showing the Reno Air Race video.

(Hint: And, it wasn't about the FACT that a different jet can fly faster, as a NORMAL operation in level flight, than a Boeing 767 can!! But, you know that, and just like to play the "spin" game....)


___________________________-

Before Rob B....er, I mean "Tiffany" continues on the same track, with the same inane mumbo-jumbo and off-the-wall nonsense...let's step back and examine the MOTIVES of this baloney, spewing from that black hole of intellectual "thought", again...that "website".

This ENTIRE "argument" hinges on ONE silly belief --- and those (very, very few misguided souls) are doing everything short of yoga-inspired contortions to make their "case".

Problem is....ALL of the evidence, every single bit of it, fails to support ANY of their "claims", in any way.

Or, put another way...in order for their silly claims of airplanes somehow being "switched", and some sooper-dooper' top-secret double-dog unknown-to-science airplane that just happens to EXACTLY look and sound like a Boeing 767 was substituted for the actual United Airlines flight 175?


Because, this is THE GIST of their inane "claims"...in order for this to have occurred, the burden of proof is on THEM to show any evidence --- any at all.

Not just a bunch of speculative fringe-based "theories"...and attempts to "back into" their claims, and garner support, by this negative approach they've employed for the last...oh, how many years???

FIND the PROOF!!

It's really that simple.

Where is it????










[edit on 25 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(Hint: And, it wasn't about the FACT that a different jet can fly faster, as a NORMAL operation in level flight, than a Boeing 767 can!! But, you know that, and just like to play the "spin" game....)



Where did I claim that "different jets" cannot fly faster?

The L-29 was well within it's flight envelope in your example.

Let us know when you find one which exceeded it's flight envelope by 150 knots and remained stable/controllable.

You have not been able to provide one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained stable and controllable.

You have been failing on this point every time you post a new aircraft which "fly's fast".

But I thank you for your underhanded insult regarding my reading comprehension. Very courteous on your part.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



The flight operating strength of an airplane is presented on a graph whose horizontal scale [should be vertical scale -Ed.] is based on load factor (Fig. 17-19) [should be Fig. 17-50 - Ed.]. The diagram is called a V/g diagram - velocity versus "g" loads or load factor. Each airplane has its own V/g diagram which is valid at a certain weight and altitude.


This is from the FAA test library. But according to the rep from Pfffft beginner pilots just make up their own in lesson 5.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


This is from the FAA test library. But according to the rep from Pfffft beginner pilots just make up their own in lesson 5.


Are you saying Vd for a 767 is not 420 knots?

Look closer at the above V-G diagrams I posted above.

I'll post them on the next page, and each subsequent page, until you get it.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


IF you would settle on ONE airspeed, and for ONE airplane....and specify the UNITS, each time...instead of conflating and exaggerating, might be helpful.


Of course, the FACT that, in the case of UAL 175, its final airspeed was NOT a matter of being constant for a very long time --- in fact, it was only for a few brief moments, no one knows how long, exactly (or do they?).


Funny how the story of TWA 841 (the "Hoot" Gibson airshow) has been IGNORED....

But, in Fantasy Land, we dare not look under the costume, to see the man inside the pretty exterior trappings.....



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


This is from the FAA test library. But according to the rep from Pfffft beginner pilots just make up their own in lesson 5.


Really, so what you are saying is pilots for truth are all liars? What is so funny?
Care to prove my question?



[edit on 25-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Tell you what - why don't you post the Vg digram for the 767, you know the actual one produced by the manufacturer, not something you clipped from the internet and then fudge in the numbers. Should say Boeing somewhere on it, right? Ask Rusty or Deets, I am sure they can put their hands on one, I mean they must have reviewed it closely before they made their statements.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Of course, the FACT that, in the case of UAL 175, its final airspeed was NOT a matter of being constant for a very long time --- in fact, it was only for a few brief moments, no one knows how long, exactly (or do they?).


We do, you just haven;t listened.

Do you think you can control an aircraft which you accelerate to 150 knots over Vmo? For any specified amount of time?



Funny how the story of TWA 841 (the "Hoot" Gibson airshow) has been IGNORED....


Wrong again weedwhacker -

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.


Source -
www.abovetopsecret.com...


But, in Fantasy Land, we dare not look under the costume, to see the man inside the pretty exterior trappings.....


Is this why you never place your name to your claims?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Tell you what - why don't you post the Vg digram for the 767, you know the actual one produced by the manufacturer,


If you been paying attention, Boeing doesn't release that data.


not something you clipped from the internet and then fudge in the numbers.



Are you saying 420 knots is not Vd for a 767 as represented by the Vd line in a V-G diagram?




top topics



 
141
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join