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: 21
141
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.



Have you checked with Wikileaks? Something as earthshattering as this should have prompted SOMEONE with access to that data to release it.

To prove, you know, that it is improbable...nay, IMPOSSIBLE! for these aircraft to have done what it is alleged they did.

Unless, of course, nobody outside your coterie of "Chuck Yeager'-wannabe's believe a word of what you are saying.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.



Have you checked with Wikileaks? Something as earthshattering as this should have prompted SOMEONE with access to that data to release it.

To prove, you know, that it is improbable...nay, IMPOSSIBLE! for these aircraft to have done what it is alleged they did.

Unless, of course, nobody outside your coterie of "Chuck Yeager'-wannabe's believe a word of what you are saying.


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


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?




Why have you avoided these questions for 9 pages trebor?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



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


No, you're just SAYING that it is. Since it is kind of the core of your argument then I would ask that you back it up with something other than some arts and crafts presentation you fudged and posted. You contend that this is basic information for all pilots and your website is chock full of pilots and aviation experts I am just suprised that you can't get your hands on some very basic information to prove your case.

I am pretty sure if I made a very technical statement you'd be all over me like white on rice demanding backup. I am just doing the same.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



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


No, you're just SAYING that it is. Since it is kind of the core of your argument then I would ask that you back it up with something other than some arts and crafts presentation you fudged and posted.



Google Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet A1NM.

Need a link?

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





posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



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


No. You fudge 420 on a graph that has nothing to do with a 767 or at least you can't prove that graph has anyhting to with a 767. Simply fudging in numbers on one axis of a graph is meaninless. I don't know why you can't understand this very basic concept.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
LMAO!

You STILL don't get it. Too funny.

See the line all the way to the right? The end of the flight envelope?

That is the Vd line.

See the "Vd"?

Vd for a 767 is 420 knots.

See the "Max Structural Cruise Speed" at the end of the green zone that says "Normal Operating"? That's the Max Operating Line. Velocity Max Operating (Vmo) is 360 knots.

I'm sorry hooper, but this is about as far as I can go. I can't teach you how to read simple words and correlate simple V-speeds. Nor can I click your mouse for you.

Since you refuse to learn anything whatsoever,

Here, let me Google that for you...


Too funny.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I'll take that as "no I can't provide the data to prove what I'm saying, you'll just have to trust me."

Good luck with that. I am sure everyone in the press is going to just go along also. So when is the big announcement that Flight 175 was a blackops super plane? Any takers yet for the press conference?

Have you ever filed any of your findings with the FAA? Ever brought your suspicions to the NTSB? Ever contacted anyone in the press?

Tell you what - I'll give you one more chance to redeem yourself - post the Vg diagram for the model plane involved in flight 767, the one published by the manufacturer and maybe you can save some face. You'll still be obligated to prove all the other things your contending - that planes break into little pieces the moment they surpass some theoritical velocity, that planes will drop like rocks out of the sky if they attempt certain turns at certain speeds, etc. But at least you'll be making a little effort which may go along way to boost your very low credibility as anything other than a salesman for your little website.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I'll take that as "no I can't provide the data to prove what I'm saying, you'll just have to trust me."



I've provided it 3 times. You just have to click it.

Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet A1NM - faa.gov (pdf)

Would you like me to take a screen shot of the TCDS and post it here with the V-Speed since it seems you don't know how to click a mouse?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Would you like me to take a screen shot of the TCDS and post it here with the V-Speed since it seems you don't know how to click a mouse?


No. I would like you to post the Vg diagram for the 767 as published by Boeing.

Then I would like you to prove that a plane disentegrates when it exceeds the limits as put forth in that diagram.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Why have you avoided these questions for 9 pages trebor?


Because frankly they are irrelevant and absurd questions. To make you happy, though, "Tiffany", I'll answer them, even though they are really pretty stupid and poorly thought out questions - ones, however, I would expect from someone who claims that an aircraft will break when it reaches its design limits. Period. Or someone who would equate the crash characteristics of a 90-to 757 at 750 f/ps to a 10 lb RC model traveling at 20 f/ps. You just get better and better, Bob.


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


Where, Cap't Tiffany, did I ever address anything about Vd in these pages? I could care less what Vd or Mr or Vr or any of those speeds are. They are not part of this discussion as far as I am concerned. Can a 757 go 383 KTS (440 mph) or 470 KTS (540 mph) at 1,000 feet. Yes, without question.


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


An absurd and stupid question. What established the Vmo? Controllability? Structural considerations? Windscreen strength? Why would it necessarily be difficult to control? Vmo is merely a recommended limitation. Aircraft fly past Vmo all the time on flight acceptance sorties and flight test flights. Unless you can prove to me - feel free to get Muffy or Buffy to help you out - that exceeding Vmo by 150 knots results in an uncontrollable 767, negating the hydraulically-assisted flight controls and electrically-actuated ailerons and trim, then STFU.


Do you feel it will be stable?


Unless you have data from a 767 flight test aircrew or personal experience as a 767 flight test pilot, whatever you say is bunk. Unless your "experts" were 767 flight test aircrew or have personal experience as a 767 flight test pilot, whatever they say is bunk. In short, unless you or your "experts" know for a fact that an aircraft "150 knots above Vmo" is unstable, then STFU.


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


Sure! I'm not certain these aircraft flew precisely 150 kts over Vmo since the only people claiming that are some really bad, bad pilots who have a track record of getting things wrong, but these aircraft were pretty much smokin' hot as they hit their targets. The NTSB listed the following aircraft as impacting the two World Trade Center towers: N612UA, which was a Boeing 767-200ER with a first flight in January, 1983. Its serial number was 21873 and it was the 41st 767 off the line. The other aircraft that hit the other WTC tower at a pretty good clip was N334AA, another Boeing 767-200ER, serial number 22332 and was number 169 off the 767 line. Its first flight was in July of 1987.

If the ID for these aircraft was good enough for the NTSB, the FAA, the FBI and every other major aviation or law enforcement organization in the US - except yours - that's good enough for me.

Now, Cap't Tiffany, if you could get Muffy and Capt Buffy, Capt Heather, Capt Trixie, et al to pass on their thoughts to my questions, I'd appreciate it:

1) Do your "colleagues" 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.

Don't bother yourself with "sources", as you have hand-waved these away with before. Just treat them as stand-alone questions.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No. I would like you to post the Vg diagram for the 767 as published by Boeing.


Are you saying Vd is not represented as the end of the V-G envelope for all aircraft?

Once again hooper, thank you for demonstrating you know less than a Student pilot.

Click here to learn how to plot your own V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known, for any aircraft you want.

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
(This will even show you how to plot your "curves" in more detail, based on the speeds set by the manufacturer)

If you do a little more googling around the net (I know, too much work for you), you can find pilot forums of those plotting their own V-G diagrams for the aircraft they fly, based on the speeds set by the manufacturer.


Then I would like you to prove that a plane disentegrates[sic] when it exceeds the limits as put forth in that diagram.



Are you saying an aircraft can fly at any speed it wants and never break?

You're wrong.

Are you saying a Cessna 172 can do 400 knots in a dive without breaking?

You're wrong.

Can you find us one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, was controllable/stable and survived?

No, you can't. Because such a plane does not exist. I even gave you the database when you asked. Here it is again.

www.ntsb.gov...

This is why EA990, a 767, suffered inflight structural failure at 5 knots into the red zone on the above V-G diagram depicting the limits set by the manufacturer.

This whole exchange reminds me of the old saying -

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

hooper, you're just here for flame bait aren't you. C'mon, admit it, we know. No one can be as dense as you. At least, I've never met such a person.

hooper, open google maps for your area, put in "Flight School" - call the number, schedule a lesson.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Got that Vg diagram yet for a 767?

At what point after a plane exceeds the speed in the diagram does the craft disintegrate?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
I could care less what Vd or Mr or Vr or any of those speeds are.


LMAO!

Numerous real and verified experts disagree with you.







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


What established the Vmo? Controllability? Structural considerations?


Both. Here, learn from an Aerobatic flight school. It appears you missed this link the numerous times I posted it in the past. click it and learn.

www.apstraining.com...





Do you feel it will be stable?


Unless you have data from a 767 flight test aircrew or personal experience as a 767 flight test pilot, whatever you say is bunk.


EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots above Vd. You know, Vd, its the speed you can careless about.


Unless you can find an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, which was POSITIVELY identified (it appears you also don't know what positive identification means either), and remained in control and stable, everything you say is bunk. Data set by the manufacturer, precedent, and numerous verified experts prove it.



Sure! I'm not certain these aircraft flew precisely 150 kts over Vmo since the only people claiming that are some really bad, bad pilots who have a track record of getting things wrong,


And yet they made it to Top Gun, twice, you you couldn't even make it to the front seat.


It's not "really, really, bad pilots" making that claim. It's the NTSB.

Read and Learn

What is 510 - 360 trebor?

That's right, 150 knots. Very good!

(Actually, true airspeed was a bit higher as the aircraft had a headwind component to the south tower. Do you know how a headwind affects airspeed trebor? Clearly not.)




If the ID for these aircraft was good enough for the NTSB, the FAA, the FBI and every other major aviation or law enforcement organization in the US - except yours - that's good enough for me.


How is that possible when there has been no attempt made by FBI to identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage?

Seems you need to do more research trebor.




1) Do your "colleagues" 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.


Do you have a source quote to read it in context considering we know you like to cherry pick quotes out of context?

I'll ask every time you ask. Why do you refuse to provide a source?

But to answer your loaded questions -

It depends on the definition of the "design limit" when reading in context of the subject matter.

Design limit as set by manufacturer? No.

Design limit when taken in the context of an object that breaks at a given point? Well, I'd pretty much call that a "design limit", wouldn't you?

EA990 reached it's "design limit" at 425 KEAS. It broke. This is 5 knots over the "Design limit" set by the manufacturer for a 767, and 85 knots less than the aircraft which hit the south tower.

Your second question - that is correct. In level flight depending on airplane or climb. In a descent, obviously not. Then it's "Design limit" is the limiting factor. See above EA990.

It seems you are unfamiliar with the four forces of flight.

Let me help you with that.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Good luck!

[edit on 26-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
At what point after a plane exceeds the speed in the diagram does the craft disintegrate?



A 767 suffers in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

This is 5 knots into the red zone in this V-G plot based on speeds set by the manufacturer.

(again, be sure to use the bottom horizontal scroll bar and scroll to the right)



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


What kind of structural failure? Wings fall off? Engines fall off? Small cracks around a rivet or two? Be very specific now. Exactly what happens to the plane at 5?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


What kind of structural failure? Wings fall off? Engines fall off? Small cracks around a rivet or two? Be very specific now. Exactly what happens to the plane at 5?


All the above. It falls out of the sky, you silly wabbit.

I don't know what is funnier...Cap't Tiffany, dressed in a black leather corset, pretending to be a chick and getting in touch with his feminine side, or the fact that he is sitting here on the Internet on ATS, arguing with what he considers aeronautical Neanderthals, instead of out lobbying the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation or the AAHSTO Standing Committee on Aviation or the FAA or the NTSB or the unions or any one of the dozens and dozens of other organizations that you would *think* would be able to effect more change that a bunch of internet denizens on a conspiracy-based web discussion board.

I guess you have to start small, Bob.

As Bob likes to say....too funny.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


What kind of structural failure? Wings fall off? Engines fall off? Small cracks around a rivet or two? Be very specific now. Exactly what happens to the plane at 5?


Wing panels, horizontal stab skin, engine.

All kinda makes it hard to control an airplane, especially when an airplane is a balance of forces and wing panels and skin on stabilizing surfaces is missing.

www.grc.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


No, no. Exactly. At 5 above. What falls off first? Don't give me a laundry list of things YOU THINK might happen. Exactly what fails first? Then second then third, etc. How long does each failure take? At exactly what point in the spectrum along the failure line? What about at 6, then 7 tne 8 then 9, etc.

Don't forget, you're accusing people of murder here. So no guessing, I want science. Engineering proof that the very particular failures will occur and when they will occur.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
No, no. Exactly. At 5 above. What falls off first? Don't give me a laundry list of things YOU THINK might happen. Exactly what fails first? Then second then third, etc. How long does each failure take? At exactly what point in the spectrum along the failure line? What about at 6, then 7 tne 8 then 9, etc.


Read the report and find out for yourself.

www.ntsb.gov...


Don't forget, you're accusing people of murder here.


I am? Please quote where and who I am accusing of murder.

The only people who have accused others of murder, are people like this guy.



Causing this based on the above -

Click

All the data that has been provided does not support their claims. I want answers. It appears you rather make excuses.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


So you have no clue what happens or if anything happens when the plane goes outside its published limits. Fine. That's pretty much what I thought.

As to the charge of murder - you tell me. Your whole argument is based around the incredulity of flight 175. The government says that Flight 175 was hijacked and flown into the World Trade Center towers. You say it can't have happened. So what happened? Who murdered all those people in the plane and in the building if not the persons who hijacked Flight 175?




top topics



 
141
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join