9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by hooper
Any chance you can go to that forum and pose your conspiracy ideas about flight 175? Love to see the reaction.

Can you please post my "Conspiracy ideas" and quote them?

No, you can't. Because like all the others who blindly support the OS, you seem to think anyone who questions the OS claim some wacky conspiracy theory. It's the typical strawman tactic used by you and your obfuscation brigade.

But a similar question was asked there, that is asked here -

"Is there anyone here that feels an aircraft will be stable/controllable at 150 knots over the barber pole of that aircraft, at any altitude, and if so, can you please find one that has been positively identified to achieve such excessive speeds over it's barber pole?"

And just like here - there has not been one pilot to endorse such an absurd notion.

hooper - let us know when you find one verified pilot to put his name on your claims and theory. So far, the only evidence for your argument has been -

"Because the government told me so..."

Originally posted by earthdude
Tiffany sez "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?"

I say "Yes" , she ignores me.

I never ignored it, you never posted one.

So, which aircraft, PRIOR to 9/11, exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, was controllable/stable, and survived?

Please post the tail number and NTSB report.

Pretty colors on that graph.

Do you mean this graph representing the speeds as set by Boeing for the 767?




I agree, you should see the pretty colors on these graphs learning from an Aerobatic Flight school. Perhaps you will then know what the colors mean.

www.apstraining.com...

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

www.dc8.org...
Past the speed of sound. I bet that DC-8 has some pretty graphs that showed where it was supposed to fly apart. Yes, it was modified. No, it was not much stronger than a modern airliner.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Wow, careful there, you can really hurt yourself dodging questions like that!

Just post your questions over at that pilots forum, make sure you mention that you are talking about Flight 175 on September 11, 2001. Ask them if they think that it must have been a specially modified 767 in order to exceed what you believe are the aircraft's physical limits. Go ahead. Lets see the reaction!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Ah...trotted out for time number TWELVE, I see???


BTW....oh, pshaw, don't want to tell you this, because then you'll likely just go change the image, and correct it to make it more "believable"...

Nevermind, just keep it like you have....it IS a lot of bright colors, even though it hurts sometimes, it's just SO bright!

(Keep it unchanged, so everyone else can see it for the fraud it represents...)

Originally posted by earthdude
Yes, it was modified. No, it was not much stronger than a modern airliner.

Wow - Thanks for posting that!

You just proved an airliner needs only a little bit of modification to go A LOT faster.

Can you spot if there were any leading edge mods in a youtube video of the south tower impact?

No, you can't. Neither can I. Nor can anyone else.

Also keep in mind that Mach 1 at the altitude tested for the DC-8 (~50,000 feet) has an true airspeed of roughly 568, this translates into an equivalent airspeed of 221 knots.

This is roughly 135 knots BELOW Vmo for the DC-8.

Feel free to calculate it yourself -

www.csgnetwork.com...

www.luizmonteiro.com...

The question still stands -

Please let us know when you find one STANDARD aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots prior to 9/11, was stable/controllable, and survived.

Thanks!

(Nice try though, and again, thanks for bringing it to my attention)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(Keep it unchanged, so everyone else can see it for the fraud it represents...)

weedwhacker.tommy -

You been saying the same old tired argument for 14 pages, that the above graph is a fraud, that a V-G cannot be drawn if the V-speeds are known, you claim to be a 767 pilot, but yet you have provided no evidence to back your claims.

Meanwhile, I have provided the Boeing TCDS with the V-speeds as defined in the graph, several verified pilots, a link to pprune, links to an Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics explaining how to draw your own, Links to Wiki with the Flight Envelope, the list goes on.,...

By the way weedwhacker/tommy - do you know what happens to the speeds as the weight changes?

Click here and learn something -

www.apstraining.com...

I'll give you a hint - it's not in your favor.

Originally posted by hooper
Wow, careful there, you can really hurt yourself dodging questions like that!

Just post your questions over at that pilots forum, make sure you mention that you are talking about Flight 175 on September 11, 2001. Ask them if they think that it must have been a specially modified 767 in order to exceed what you believe are the aircraft's physical limits. Go ahead. Lets see the reaction!

So, you can't quote my "Conspiracy ideas".

Just as I thought.

You like to make stuff up as you go along, right hooper?

Again hooper - Let us know when you find a verified pilot who will endorse your claim that an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is "easily" controlled/stable and will remain together for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

So far, you have zero.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

ENOUGH!!



You all, every single one of you, will stop the "identity" accusations. I don't, nor do the vast majority of members, give a flying damn who you may or may not be out in the "world".

You will address each other by your ATS screen name, or not at all...

...if you can not do this, don't post in the forum.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Yeah, yeah, thats right. I made up this whole idea about Flight 175 being physically incapable of flying the way it did on September 11, 2001. What are you afraid of? Maybe having those pilots laugh in your face or being called a kook?

Just simply go on that forum and state that it is your belief that Flight 175 was not capable of achieving a speed of 510 and crashing into the World Trade Center towers and ask who concurs with your findings.

Also, why don't you post your little graph that you keep posting here and ask if it is an accurate picture of the limitations of an 767.

Originally posted by hooper
Yeah, yeah, thats right. I made up this whole idea about Flight 175 being physically incapable of flying the way it did on September 11, 2001. What are you afraid of? Maybe having those pilots laugh in your face or being called a kook?

Just simply go on that forum and state that it is your belief that Flight 175 was not capable of achieving a speed of 510 and crashing into the World Trade Center towers and ask who concurs with your findings.

hooper- it appears you are not familiar with subjective and objective analysis/opinion based on experience.

If one was to state - Do you think an aircraft can exceed Vmo by 150, remain controllable/stable and survive?

You will not get one verified pilot answering in the affirmative. This is an objective approach to the question and the reason you have zero support for your theory from a verified pilot.

If you ask - "Can UA175 do such speeds" - you will get a subjective answer based on that persons bias. Yes, pilots even have a bias.

Do you not understand the difference? Apparently not.

Xtrozero is an excellent example.

He first claimed the speeds were "easy". But this is when he ASSUMED the speeds were "500 mph".

When he was informed a bit more - his reaction was this -

"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."

Also, why don't you post your little graph that you keep posting here and ask if it is an accurate picture of the limitations of an 767.

Feel free to post it there and ask.

We already know the graph is accurate by the information given - the Boeing TCDS with the V-speeds as defined in the graph, several verified pilots, a link to pprune, links to an Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics explaining how to draw your own, Links to Wiki with the Flight Envelope, the list goes on.,...


Again, if weedwhacker is a 767 pilot, why is he unable to provide proof for his claims that the graph is a fraud for the past 14 pages?

It's because he can't.

Read this post to learn more -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

If you ask - "Can UA175 do such speeds" - you will get a subjective answer based on that persons bias. Yes, pilots even have a bias.

Fine, I can live with that - how about you? Ask the question over on the pilots forum and lets see what the aggregate "bias" presents.

What is it your afraid of? Are you afraid that if you take that question to a general pilots forum that the answers may, just may, contradict your own position that Flight 175 was not capable, etc.?

And interesting that you brought the "bias" factor - there wouldn't happen to be any bias among the aviation professionals that you keep appealing to, would there?

If so, then we have reached a general conclusion with this topic. That is to say - you have and opinion, some people you know kind of share that opinion, but there may be more than a few people that do not share that opinion, but you will never know because you don't want to ask questions on the public record when you don't know the answer you'll get (or more than likely - you do know the answer you'll get).

Originally posted by hooper

If you ask - "Can UA175 do such speeds" - you will get a subjective answer based on that persons bias. Yes, pilots even have a bias.

Fine, I can live with that - how about you? Ask the question over on the pilots forum and lets see what the aggregate "bias" presents.

So, you'd rather have a subjective opinion instead of objective, even if the same person gives you two different answers for essentially the same question?

Clearly you are not familiar with the scientific process, but then again, we already knew that.

hooper - let us know when you find one verified pilot who supports your claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots.

So far, you have zero and have failed repeatedly.

....we have reached a general conclusion with this topic. That is to say - you have and opinion,

My "opinion" is an informed opinion. It is based on data, manufacturer's set limits, statements made by verified experts and aeronautical knowledge a student pilot will know.

Your "opinion" is an un-informed "opinion". It is based on "Because that is what the government told me...".

Again, for those keeping score -

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8
Numerous verified experts - (Listed throughout this thread)



Evidence for your argument -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Let us know when you find one verified pilot, who has also done his research thoroughly, looking at both sides of the debate, and will support your claims hooper - Good luck!

Be sure to show them the presentation from Pilots for 9/11 Truth - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack.

Although I'm sure you would rather get their "opinion" without informing them of the data.

Originally posted by hooper


And interesting that you brought the "bias" factor - there wouldn't happen to be any bias among the aviation professionals that you keep appealing to, would there?

Let's see....a bias among the PfT crew? Ya think? nawwwww! Aside from the fact that they all hate George Bush. With a passion. Truly. madly. deeply. Bush Derangement Syndrome-kind of hate. A pathological-kind of hate.

But a bias? nawwwwww!

Originally posted by trebor451
Let's see....a bias among the PfT crew? Ya think? nawwwww! Aside from the fact that they all hate George Bush. With a passion. Truly. madly. deeply. Bush Derangement Syndrome-kind of hate. A pathological-kind of hate.

But a bias? nawwwwww!

Actually, there are many who voted for Bush, both times.

You should really do your research trebor. Every argument you have made in this thread has been wrong.

reply to post by weedwhacker

(Keep it unchanged, so everyone else can see it for the fraud it represents...)

I agree.

Here's a Hint Tiffany: You have have to scroll over to get the punch line. But it is almost as funny as the 11.2 Gs joke.

Originally posted by waypastvne
I agree.

Here's a Hint Tiffany: You have have to scroll over to get the punch line. But it is almost as funny as the 11.2 Gs joke.

Are you saying Vd is not the end of the Flight Envelope V-G diagram for every aircraft on this planet?

If so, you would be wrong.

en.wikipedia.org...

Let us know when you are going to edit Wiki, The Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, and inform APS Training (and every other flight school), they are teaching it wrong.

www.apstraining.com...

But first, you may want to start here and inform us, it's only been FOURTEEN pages and you have zero source for your claims.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

So, you'd rather have a subjective opinion instead of objective, even if the same person gives you two different answers for essentially the same question?

No, I would like to see the reactions YOU get when you present your views about Flight 175 and the planes capabilities at a forum that you thought so highly of that you used the forum to bolster your alleged arguments.

C'mon - go over the forum and post your opinions about Flight 175. Lets see what those pilots say about your "theories" or your interpretation of the data, or your homemade Vg diagrams. Put all the debunkers to shame. That forum is like this one, those pilots and aviation professional can post annonymously so they should have no hestitancy about giving their honest review of your allegations.

That forum was unbiased and realiable enough for you to source it when talking about your diagrams - why is it now all of a sudden "subjective" and "bias"?

Originally posted by hooper
No, I would like to see the reactions YOU get when you present your views about Flight 175 and the planes capabilities at a forum that you thought so highly of that you used the forum to bolster your alleged arguments.

It has already been presented. Pay attention.

The question was asked -

"Is there anyone here that feels an aircraft will be stable/controllable at 150 knots over the barber pole of that aircraft, at any altitude, and if so, can you please find one that has been positively identified to achieve such excessive speeds over it's barber pole?"

Not one pilot replied. Logical deduction means that there are no pilots to date who feel an aircraft is controllable/stable at such excessive speeds.

Let us know when you find one. So far, you fail, repeatedly.

Let us know when you find one aircraft which achieved such speeds and remained stable/controllable prior to 9/11, or after.

So far, you fail, repeatedly.

Again hooper, you have nothing to support your claims aside from "Because the government told me so...".

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Well, maybe I am not making myself clear. The question is

"Does anyone here feel that flight data for Flight 175 on September 11, 2001 as presented by the NTSB, specifically the terminal speed of 510 is physically impossible for that type of aircraft at that altitude"?

Remember - this is all about 9/11 and conspiracies. You've got to get flight 175 in that question somewhere - what's the problem?

And by the way, unless you can present something to contrary, I will accept the word of the aviation professionals at the NTSB over the word of, say, John Lear. Or you.

Also, please post your Vg diagram and get a general opinion if it is applicable. This is pretty much your last chance, if you try and dodge it again it's pretty much going to be a sure thing that you are afraid to take your "theories" outside the safe realm of conspiracies forums and websites.