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: 24
141
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990
Numerous verified experts - Read this thread


So the evidence for your argument that the NTSB data regarding the speed of Flight 175 is false is (drumroll please):

NTSB data!!!!!!!

You can't make this up.

Oh, and of course the bad old FBI came in and told the NTSB how to read radar data.


The speed reported by the NTSB is based on Radar and video analysis.

The type and tail number is based on what they been told by the FBI.

The FBI never positively identified the wreckage.

Please provide evidence that the aircraft which is reported to have exceeded 767 Vmo by 150 knots is in fact N612UA and a standard 767.

You don't understand the level of evidence here?

Do you still think the V-speeds plotted in the this V-G diagram do not represent the definitions as set by the manufacturer?





[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

From the flight data I looked at, you are right, they were flying almost completely out of control. This still does not mean that they could not hit the towers. The data may have swayed the pilots for truth, but I am still undecided.


Fair enough.

Do you mind telling us your qualifications and experience in aviation?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I don't think you are really this obtuse...no one can be.

No...it is obvious that the PfffT leader is a "one trick pony", and MUST resort to this same line, each and every time...at least, until a NEW litany of half-truths and innuendo is devised, then THAT becomes the new "standard".

Doomed to be repeated ad nauseum. Attempting to sway those who don't have the ability, nor the experience in the specific technical fields, to think for themselves.

Here, a fine example of the type of "bait and switch" tactic (among others):



So, do you think a hijacker who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, could control a Boeing 767, 150 knots over Vmo...


Firstly, the long-worn out red herring about the 172 was supposed to be about Hani Hanjour's alleged "poor" flying abilities. Hani Hanjour --- remember him???

NOT on United 175. Nope! American 77.

So, for those scoring at home, FIRST obvious and blatant example that the "story" that this "Tiffany" attempts to keep repeating IS a "story"; since it is when trying to keep a lie going, the flaws start to become evident.

SECOND, in that same snippet, is the oft-repeated "150 knots over Vmo" (sic).

This is the tactic employed to attempt "argument from ridicule", with the obvious derisive and dismissive tone....yet, the details are left out, ON PURPOSE, in order to leave false impressions in impressionable, and non-technically minded people's minds.

In any case, there is NO EVIDENCE, other than a blustery "opinion", that any assertions from "PfffT" have any merit whatsoever. (For, just in case it's not obvious, these are DIRECT and commonly-repeated lines of BS from that same site --- dutifully being regurgitated by "Tiffany"...almost as if, "she" has an alter-ego....or, is channeling someone else, perhaps? Psychic abilities, maybe?)

Continuing, with this un-substantiated assertion:


... zero time in type...


Absolutely NO way to be certain of that. SO, for this to be claimed as a "fact" is terribly disingenuous, yes?

Continuing, with some non-essential made up qualifier...that has NO bearing on the events of 9/11 --- but, used again to alter the impressions, and subtley trend the non-expert audience to "their" point of view:


...to hit a target with a 25' margin for error?


Rubbish, garbage, and irrelevant.

Finishing (this round) with yet more completely off-the-wall incorrect, and incomplete comparisons:


When a NEWER 767 couldn't even hold together at 5 knots over the manufacturer set design limit?


This refers to yet another bugaboo favorite of "PfffT". SO much so, that they made a DVD about it, in hopes to profit from its sales. (People...save your $, please!!)

Trying to equate the completely DIFFERENT circumstances surrounding the dive and crash of Egypt Air 990. This is a further example of the dishonesty exhibited by these "people", at that "site".

They will NOT tell you about the different aerodynamic circumstances, and the actions of the pilots....ALL things that contributed to the structural failures noted in the Egypt Air crash.

No...instead, "they" like to 'dazzle with BS' and use un-related instances in a futile attempt to "prove" their claims.

With so many "experts" over there (***), I am surprised none of them realize this....oh, of course! How silly of me. OF COURSE they realize this...hence, the dishonesty aspect. Those of us who ARE honest and knowledgeable can see through the charade.

What a shame there are so many willingly gullible people out there, still to fool, though.
_______

(***) Speaking of "experts". I meant to point out, earlier, that whwnever "Tiffany" tries to load up a psot with all the so-called "authorities" and their "qualifications" from the "PfffT" website, that lately Capt. Lohn Lear's name was startingly absent from their roster, and "appeal to authority" tactic?

Gee...he WAS one of the 'founding members', right? Oh, but he's on the crazyjag all the time about "hologram" airplanes and "space-based DEW" that did the actual destroying....can't have that kind of silliness distracting people from the OTHER sillness (the kind that isn't as obvious to the uninitiated), can we???



[edit on 27 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I don't think you are really this obtuse...no one can be.

(snipped rant)



weedwhacker - have you figured out where the 150 over Vmo claim comes from yet?

Here's a hint -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are the speeds plotted in the above V-G diagram not representative of the speeds set by the manufacturer? Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts?

I give credit to trebor and hooper for actually trying to answer. (albeit very poorly)

Why have you avoided these questions for more than 11 pages?




Firstly, the long-worn out red herring about the 172 was supposed to be about Hani Hanjour's alleged "poor" flying abilities. Hani Hanjour --- remember him???

NOT on United 175. Nope! American 77.


Hani Hanjour was described as the most experienced "hijacker pilot" by the 9/11 Commission report.

Are you saying someone less qualified than a pilot who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, could control a 767 150 knots over Vmo, zero time in type, and able to hit a target with a margin for error less than 25'?

Care to put your name on that?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


CONGRATULATIONS!!!

By my count, this is now the TENTH TIME you have spammed this thread (not counting the OTHER therads) with that same made-up "Vg Diagram" --- the one that is NOT an official Boeing document.

What I am wondering about is what makes someoen who is actually a pilot, and has a fair amount of real experience, be so bobble-headed to actually believe this tripe put out on his website??


"Tiffany", next time you see your boyfriend, ask him why don't you?

Oh....and I'd like to be sure I'm NEVER anywhere near him, if someone ever lets him loose with an airplane.....
__________

Oh, forgot...HERE, for everyone's benefit, a handy-dandy way to count the posts, and see the fake diagram, and its history of spam, for yourselves.....

(Rob must be so proud...)





[edit on 27 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


CONGRATULATIONS!!!

By my count, this is now the TENTH TIME you have spammed this thread (not counting the OTHER therads) with that same made-up "Vg Diagram" --- the one that is NOT an official Boeing document.



Are you saying a V-G diagram cannot be plotted if the V-Speeds are known?

Are the speeds plotted in the above V-G diagram not representative of the speeds set by the manufacturer for a 767?

Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts - prior to 9/11?

Why do you refuse to answer these questions?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I agree....

I’m a pilot and I could have hit those towers without much difficulty in excess of 500 MPH. The hardest part of flying is landing, so once you are away from the ground it becomes rather easy. BTW a real airplane is easier than a sim...

2 G turn in a large aircraft is a rather large input. In the C-130 we would do a defensive maneuver called 60 and 2 that was 60 degrees of bank with 2 Gs, so there was no reason to even come close to this and they seemed to have a rather long straight in approach to the towers. Also all sound recordings that I heard was that of engines at max power and when you combine this with a slow descent you are talking extremely fast speeds.

Designed max speed and rip the wing off speed are two different things. Designed limits are for preventing early fatigue over the predicted life of the aircraft. They most likely over stressed the aircraft to the point it would have needed a good amount of structural repair to get it back into service, but hitting the towers made that a moot point.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Yes.

And, the "150 knots over Vmo" (sic) tired old litany is getting...well, tired.

People who KNOW BETTER can read the NTSB report, and determine the TIME elelment at those speeds...not to mention, that it using the radar data-computed GS....there are such things as temporary glitches in teh computational software.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Yes.

And, the "150 knots over Vmo" (sic) tired old litany is getting...well, tired.

People who KNOW BETTER can read the NTSB report, and determine the TIME elelment at those speeds...not to mention, that it using the radar data-computed GS....there are such things as temporary glitches in teh computational software.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I agree....

I’m a pilot and I could have hit those towers without much difficulty in excess of 500 MPH. The hardest part of flying is landing, so once you are away from the ground it becomes rather easy. BTW a real airplane is easier than a sim...



hooper disagrees with you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Xtrozero - you think it's easy to control an aircraft which has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots?

Care to put your name on that?

You'll be the first.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Yes.

And, the "150 knots over Vmo" (sic) tired old litany is getting...well, tired.

People who KNOW BETTER can read the NTSB report, and determine the TIME elelment at those speeds...not to mention, that it using the radar data-computed GS....there are such things as temporary glitches in teh computational software.




People who read the NTSB reports will find out that the NTSB claims 510 knots for the aircraft which hit the south tower.

Radar lat/long, time and distance calculations confirms the NTSB, as does video analysis.

Read the report.


If radar is not accurate, how do pilots shoot approaches 4 miles in trail IMC without running into each other?

weedwhacker - again...

Are you saying a V-G diagram cannot be plotted if the V-Speeds are known?

Are the speeds plotted in the above V-G diagram not representative of the speeds set by the manufacturer for a 767?

Are you able to find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained in control/stable and did not shed parts - prior to 9/11?


We have already heard from your obfuscation brigade running interference for you, -

Why do you refuse to answer these questions?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I agree....

I’m a pilot and I could have hit those towers without much difficulty in excess of 500 MPH. The hardest part of flying is landing, so once you are away from the ground it becomes rather easy. BTW a real airplane is easier than a sim...



hooper disagrees with you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Xtrozero - you think it's easy to control an aircraft which has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots?

Care to put your name on that?

You'll be the first.


It all depends and yes I do think it is easy.

So at 35,000 feet the 767 cruises at mach .80 to .86 and both are in excess of 500 MPH.

The C-141 I once flew on had a cruise speed of .74 that is much slower than the 767, but its max speed was 567 and as I said 567 is not "rip the wings" of speed either. What would actually rip the wings off is G load which in a somewhat straight flight it is low. So flying at 200 Knots at 10,000 or below by FAA regs or cruising 500 knots at 35,000 feet feels the same and a big part of that is artificial feel built into the flight control systems. These systems are smart and can self adjust for the same feel across different loads on the flight controls. (different air speeds)

I'm not sure what your chart represents since jets normally do not chart MPH and so use Knots and even then that is rare with jets since they fly mach numbers.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
It all depends and yes I do think it is easy.

So at 35,000 feet the 767 cruises at mach .80 to .86 and both are in excess of 500 MPH.

The C-141 I once flew on had a cruise speed of .74 that is much slower than the 767, but its max speed was 567 and as I said 567 is not "rip the wings" of speed either. What would actually rip the wings off is G load which in a somewhat straight flight it is low. So flying at 200 Knots at 10,000 or below by FAA regs or cruising 500 knots at 35,000 feet feels the same and a big part of that is artificial feel built into the flight control systems. These systems are smart and can self adjust for the same feel across different loads on the flight controls. (different air speeds)

I'm not sure what your chart represents since jets normally do not chart MPH and so use Knots and even then that is rare with jets since they fly mach numbers.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Xtrozero]


Xtrazero, you think it's easy to fly an aircraft at 150 knots over Vmo in any aircraft at any altitude?

You do realize you just made your C-141 supersonic, right?

You think a C-141 is easy to control through Mach 1 at 35,000 feet? Ever heard the term Mach Tuck? Critical Mach? The "Coffin corner"?

Are you familiar with the terms True Airspeed, Indicated, Calibrated and Equivalent??

Let me rephrase Xtrazero,

Do you think your C-141 would be easy to control 150 knots over the barber pole, at or near sea level?

If the answer is yes to all, again - care to put your name on it?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


"homer please dont call me mr scorpion
call me hank
" "yes ok mr scorpio"



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You think a C-141 is easy to control through Mach 1 at 35,000 feet?


I think I said .74 was our normal cruise speed, and so mach 1 at 35,000 feet is 663 mph and that would make .74 equal to 490 mph. BTW normal cruise speed is for good fuel consumption and not structural integrity.

At sea level mach 1 is 761 MPH since air is denser and so sound travels faster.


So yes it would be easy and no I would not come close to mach 1.....




Are you familiar with the terms True Airspeed, Indicated, Calibrated and Equivalent??


Yes would you like me to explain each one?



Do you think your C-141 would be easy to control 150 knots over the barber pole, at or near sea level?


If you are asking me in some weird way if I could hit the towers at 500 MPH with a 767 the answer is yes, and if a person with low skill can do the same I would say yes to that too.

Oops edit to add: I see your chart is in knots, I just see many post MPH as their measurement, and seem to use the 500 MPH as terms of what the 767 was doing. or not capable of doing.






[edit on 27-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If you are asking me in some weird way if I could hit the towers at 500 MPH with a 767 the answer is yes, and if a person with low skill can do the same I would say yes to that too.


Since it's clear you didn't read this thread. Please read this.

First, the speeds reported are not "500 mph". Please read the reports.

The NTSB reports speeds at 510 knots/587 mph at less than 2,000 MSL.

This is 150 knots over Vmo for the 767.

Vmo is the barber pole.

Do you think it is "easy" to control an aircraft, any aircraft, near sea level, at 150 knots over the barber pole, 220 knots over Maneuvering speed, pulling G's, to hit a target with a 25' margin for error?

If so, do you care to put your name on that? (3rd time asked)

You will be the first.

See here for those who would disagree with you.

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


If so, do you care to put your name on that? (3rd time asked)


You keep asking the same thing over and over so what do you want me to say....

I have already said that speed is really not a factor when flying in a somewhat straight line. In this case if they turned a few miles or so on a straight heading towards the towers, and then firewalled the throttles, after that point they would only need to make small changes in their approach as they accelerated well past their “barber pole” and I doubt they even cared what their speed was.

If you suggest they were in some kind of tight turn to hit the towers at 500 plus knots then now we are talking structure integrity of the wings plus Gs forces and finally just aircraft/pilot capabilities. This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish. One did seem to make rather aggressive corrections the last few seconds that if they didn't hit they would most likely still be in serious trouble in they were not going to be able to come around for another try.

You see there is still one problem with all this... even if thermite was used for the majority of the blast, even if the planes were drones and all the people are on an island somewhere, even if Chaney himself wrote a personal check to pay for pilot training, or even if the pilots were different than the hijackers and were extremely experienced, even if any other thought or idea...

Two planes hit the towers at high speeds... that is something we do know as a matter of fact. Well unless you believe in John Lears version of laser with alien technology holograms.


Relative speed should be somewhat simple to calculate with large number of video and sound recordings made, but I’m not sure how they came up with the numbers you posted.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If you suggest they were in some kind of tight turn to hit the towers at 500 plus knots then now we are talking structure integrity of the wings plus Gs forces and finally just aircraft/pilot capabilities. This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish.


Exactly, now you're getting it.

And it's not my claim, it's the claims made by the NTSB. I have a feeling that when you read the reports, you too will have that "Holy #!" moment.


So, let us know when you would like to join the many other verified pilots who also claim it's impossible after reviewing the data thoroughly.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The above list includes several Capts from United and American Airlines with thousands of hours in 757/767's and actual command time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.



(This exchange between Xtrazero and myself is an excellent example of why there are not more pilots listed at Pilots For 9/11 Truth... yet)

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If you suggest they were in some kind of tight turn to hit the towers at 500 plus knots then now we are talking structure integrity of the wings plus Gs forces and finally just aircraft/pilot capabilities. This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish.


Exactly, now you're getting it.

And it's not my claim, it's the claims made by the NTSB. I have a feeling that when you read the reports, you too will have that "Holy #!" moment.


So, let us know when you would like to join the many other verified pilots who also claim it's impossible after reviewing the data thoroughly.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]


When you look at the videos both planes look to have been on a straight approach. With the first one there is the one video of it hitting the tower, but there are many eye witnesses and sound recordings that show it was flying a straight trajectory. The second plane turned the last second or so and still almost missed, and he was well on his way of losing control if he did miss at that speed.

I also didn’t see a bomb blast as much as a typical fireball style explosion, so to me two planes at very high rate of speed hit the towers and I guess we can argue the fine points as to how correct they were in the numbers, but the fact of the matter is on 100 videos from just as many different angles.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
When you look at the videos both planes look to have been on a straight approach. With the first one there is the one video of it hitting the tower, but there are many eye witnesses and sound recordings that show it was flying a straight trajectory. The second plane turned the last second or so and still almost missed, and he was well on his way of losing control if he did miss at that speed.




Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.


Source


I also didn’t see a bomb blast as much as a typical fireball style explosion, so to me two planes at very high rate of speed hit the towers and I guess we can argue the fine points as to how correct they were in the numbers, but the fact of the matter is on 100 videos from just as many different angles.


No one here is arguing aircraft hit the towers.

We are arguing whether a standard 767 can fly at 510 knots,-- which is 150 knots over Vmo-- pull G Loads, remain controllable and stable by a hijacker who had less experience than one who could not control a Cessna 172 at 65 knots.

According to you, you say it's impossible.

You first said it was "easy" but that was when you thought it was 500 mph in straight and level flight. Hopefully you now know better?

The aircraft which hit the south tower has never been positively identified to be N612UA, nor a standard 767.

If you care about your country, you will read this thread thoroughly. You certainly will know the flight path to the south tower based on radar (not a short clip from a video) and never make the mistake again that it was at "500 mph" in straight and level.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




top topics



 
141
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join