9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Unlike you hooper - "Because the government told me so" is not evidence for critical thinking individuals.

Neither is the stance that everything that comes from a government source is false. That eliminates a lot of basic information, in fact it really calls into question how it is that when I believe the government I am being an uncritical idiot, but when you quote the NTSB you are proving the case?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Wow, is this a who can fling poo further contest? Supposed extra moderation in here must be on lunch break. Civility is lacking and the arguments being used are so useless. I know I am not adding anything to the discussion, but seriously are the other people?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Unlike you hooper - "Because the government told me so" is not evidence for critical thinking individuals.

Neither is the stance that everything that comes from a government source is false. That eliminates a lot of basic information, in fact it really calls into question how it is that when I believe the government I am being an uncritical idiot, but when you quote the NTSB you are proving the case?

hooper -

Let us know when you find one verified expert to support your claims.

Let us know when you find one aircraft to exceed Vmo by 150 knots and remain controllable/stable or survived, prior to 9/11, or after.

Again - the 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

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, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8
Numerous verified experts - (Listed throughout this thread)

Again, what is that argument and how is it related to 9/11?

And exactly who are these "experts" and how are they more qualified than the NTB?

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, China Airlines 747SP, TWA 727, 737, Modified DC-8
Numerous verified experts - (Listed throughout this thread)

Again, what is that argument and how is it related to 9/11?

And exactly who are these "experts"

Read and learn -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Uh, the question was

who are these experts AND HOW ARE THEY MORE QUALIFIED THAN THE NTSB?

I see how you conveniently left that last half of the question out of the quote. In the future it is polite to either quote in full or at least indicate to the audience that it is a partial quote by the use of .....

Unless, of course, you are trying to be deceptive and evasive.

Speaking of evasive, exactly how does your question relate to 9/11? Use your own words now, it shouldn't be too difficult. I know you can paste links to websites, now lets see if you can form sentences.

Originally posted by hooper
Uh, the question was

who are these experts AND HOW ARE THEY MORE QUALIFIED THAN THE NTSB?

Where did I claim they were "more qualified" than the NTSB?

Do you claim their qualifications mean nothing?

Who at the NTSB positively identified the aircraft on 9/11? Who at the FBI?

Here's a hint -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What are your qualifications in aviation?

Do you have one verified expert to support your claims?

Speaking of evasive, exactly how does your question relate to 9/11?

If I were to use my "own words",. they would be the same as in the linked presentation at the bottom of this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You want me to type them all out because you refuse to click links?

Haven't I held your hand enough in this thread?

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

You want me to type them all out because you refuse to click links?

Yeah. Try and use your own words. Shouldn't be too difficult. This is a forum wherein the idea is that you type what you think and then I type in what I think. Your constant reference to a website is just spam. If the film you keep refering to in your links convinced you of something then you should be able to tell the audience in your own words.

How is your question related to 9/11 and why are your experts opinions superior to the that of the NTSB?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Haven't I held your hand enough in this thread?

Actually, you have yet to provide a single direct answer to any question.

Originally posted by hooper
Yeah. Try and use your own words. Shouldn't be too difficult. This is a forum wherein the idea is that you type what you think and then I type in what I think. Your constant reference to a website is just spam.

It's not a "website" hooper, it is a presentation containing math, science, and numerous interviews with verified 757/767 Capts from American and United airlines. Click it. Check it out.

How is your question related to 9/11 and why are your experts opinions superior to the that of the NTSB?

After 26 pages, you STILL do not know how the question of 150 over Vmo speed relates to 9/11?

What are your qualifications in aviation hooper?



hooper, you're a hoot!

Thank you for showing all the readers the typical traits of those who blindly support anything the govt tells them.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Well, you have proven you can type and you have proven that you know how to insert links to your favorite website and you have proven that you cannot answer a direct question.

Since you have proven nothing else, for the time being, I, like the rest of the world will choose to believe the NTSB and not some self appointed experts on some conspiracy website.

And yes, after 26 pages you still have not managed to type a simple sentence, in your own words, explaining why your particular question relates to 9/11.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, you have proven you can type and you have proven that you know how to insert links to your favorite website and you have proven that you cannot answer a direct question.

Hooper, your question has been answered ad nauseum over the past 28 pages.

Sorry hooper, if you don't get it by now, you never will. What's the use in me typing it again, only for you to ask again 3 pages from now?

Why have you refused to answer my direct questions just on this page alone?

Do you claim the experts and their interviews/qualifications linked on this thread mean nothing?

Who at the NTSB positively identified the aircraft on 9/11? Who at the FBI?

Here's a hint -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What are your qualifications in aviation? (7th time asked)

Do you have one verified expert to support your claims? (perhaps the 45th time asked).

Can you find us one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, remained controllable/stable and survived, prior to 9/11 or after? (again perhaps the 45th time asked)

Since you have proven nothing else, for the time being, I, like the rest of the world will choose to believe the NTSB and not some self appointed experts on some conspiracy website.

Thank you for once again admitting your argument is based on incredulity, a "belief", a logical fallacy.

Also, thank you for admitting you agree with the NTSB and their data that it shows too high to hit the Pentagon and speeds/G loads reported well outside the envelope of a 757/767, whereas all other aircraft lost control or suffered in flight structural failure well prior.

The Vne for a 767 is 360 knots which is 414 mph.. The first plane was estimated to be traveling at 435 mph, the second at 560. I have been looking through your FAA regulations website and by reading through the maths it seems planes in the US are certified for 150% over max vne, so that would be approx 621 mph. so the planes could have met the specs you have shown so badly

Wee Mad

in regards to your query tif, there are recorded instances of Spitfires and other aircraft during WWII hitting sonic speeds in a shallow 20-30 degree dive, well over their VMO and still coming back okay,
Wiki Links

Wee Mad

Originally posted by weemadmental
The Vne for a 767 is 360 knots which is 414 mph..

Incorrect.

Vmo is not the same as Vne.

The first plane was estimated to be traveling at 435 mph, the second at 560.

At what altitude? True airspeed? Indicated?

I have been looking through your FAA regulations website and by reading through the maths it seems planes in the US are certified for 150% over max vne,

Incorrect.

G Loading needs to be certified for 150%. Speeds are different.

And if your assertion were true, why are the numerous examples in this thread (sourced by those who support the OS) shown here to lose parts well before "150% over"?

It's because your assertion is false.

Again, please show us one aircraft which exceeded Vmo by 150 knots, was controllable/stable and survived, prior to 9/11, or after.

Thanks!

Originally posted by weemadmental
in regards to your query tif, there are recorded instances of Spitfires and other aircraft during WWII hitting sonic speeds in a shallow 20-30 degree dive, well over their VMO and still coming back okay,
Wiki Links

Wee Mad

You need to read your link -

Propeller aircraft were, nevertheless, able to approach the speed of sound in a dive. This led to numerous crashes for a variety of reasons. These included the rapidly increasing forces on the various control surfaces, which led to the aircraft becoming difficult to control to the point where many suffered from powered flight into terrain when the pilot was unable to overcome the force on the control stick. The Mitsubishi Zero was infamous for this[citation needed] problem, and several attempts to fix it only made the problem worse. In the case of the Supermarine Spitfire, the wings suffered from low torsional stiffness, and when ailerons were moved the wing tended to flex such that they counteracted the control input, leading to a condition known as control reversal.

Same source as linked above.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA



you mean the TuckUnder effect. There are several factors which cause this. The main is thatt as airflow separation takes place, the downwash behind the wing is decreased. Prior to this, the horizontal stabilizer is trimmed to keep the airplane level. With this decrease in downwash, the stabilizer AOA, in effect, is increased thus pushing the tail up hence the pitch down.

There are two other factors. One is that as the shock waves move rearward, so is the center of pressure, adding to the tuckunder. The second is that the aerodynamic center shifts rearward, adding to the Tuckunder effect. One interesting thing about the aerodynamic center shift is that in some aircraft, the aero center shift forward first (causing momentary pitch up) before eventually shifts rearward (pitch down). this was probably what CULBER was thinking about.

This does not stop subsonic aircraft becoming supersonic, just an effect which happens to all aircraft that can reach this speed, you trim and carry on, on apply back pressure to the stick, either way its doesnt support your silly argument

Wee Mad

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


SIGH!

Vmo is not the same as Vne.

VMO is a term that applies to Transport Category airplanes.

VNE is more for the General Aviation (IE, smaller) airplanes. In common pilot-speak usage, that is....THAT is the problem when someone who thinks she is a qualified pilot, from Googling madly online, gets into these types of discussions, and further...BUYS that load of junk from that certain vanity website....

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

you mean the TuckUnder effect. There are several factors which cause this. The main is thatt as airflow separation takes place, the downwash behind the wing is decreased. Prior to this, the horizontal stabilizer is trimmed to keep the airplane level. With this decrease in downwash, the stabilizer AOA, in effect, is increased thus pushing the tail up hence the pitch down.

There are two other factors. One is that as the shock waves move rearward, so is the center of pressure, adding to the tuckunder. The second is that the aerodynamic center shifts rearward, adding to the Tuckunder effect. One interesting thing about the aerodynamic center shift is that in some aircraft, the aero center shift forward first (causing momentary pitch up) before eventually shifts rearward (pitch down). this was probably what CULBER was thinking about.

This does not stop subsonic aircraft becoming supersonic, just an effect which happens to all aircraft that can reach this speed, you trim and carry on, on apply back pressure to the stick, either way its doesnt support your silly argument

Wee Mad

Pilots and Aeronautical Engineers call it Mach Tuck.

Ever heard of running out of elevator or trim due to excessive speeds?

Are you aware the elevator and trim have physical stops?

This is noe of the many reasons manufacturers set airspeed limitations.

By the way, you really should read your "Spitfire" wiki link before you try to use it as a source -

There are, however, several claims that the sound barrier was broken during World War II. Hans Guido Mutke claimed to have broken the sound barrier on April 9, 1945 in a Messerschmitt Me 262.

snip

Similar claims for the Spitfire and other propeller aircraft are more suspect. It is now known that traditional airspeed gauges using a pitot tube give inaccurately high readings in the transonic regime, apparently due to shock waves interacting with the tube or the static source. This led to problems then known as "Mach jump".[10]