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: 30
141
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental
This was solved in later models with changes to the wing. so the spitfire could do this !!


Please show us the modifications made to the 767 which allow it to exceed Vmo by 150 knots and remain controllable/stable to hit a target with a 25' margin for error, with a "pilot" who has zero time in type, and less experience than a "pilot" who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.



it doesn't need modification as the spitfire did ,aircraft designers have learnt a whole lot since the 40's, the 767 it can do this, stop turning away from the argument when you are wrong.

Wee Mad




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
it doesn't need modification as the spitfire did ,aircraft designers have learnt a whole lot since the 40's, the 767 it can do this, stop turning away from the argument when you are wrong.

Wee Mad


767 can do this?

Then why did EA990 suffer in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS?

You do realize the EAS calculations take into consideration Compressibility, do you not?

No you don't. You don't even know what your own sources say.



Again Wee Mad.

Do you feel an aircraft will be controllable/stable at speeds exceeding Vmo +`150?

Are you willing to put your name to that claim?

You'll be the first, as weedwhacker doesn't even want to take upon that responsibility.

Why do you refuse to answer these questions?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
i have told you a me 163 komet has been noted to do what you said, i answered this question, you ignored this.

The estimated air speed is not the same as the known speed or IAS so you cant quote on that, you are making assumptions again, based on flawed math, you can guestimate the speed to your own agenda so don't use this as an example of structural failure at a given speed, as you are wrong.

as i have stated you are googling terms you dont understand or want to know for your own end.

let this stupidity end and let the thread die as you dont know what you are quoting or looking up

Wee Mad.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
i have told you a me 163 komet has been noted to do what you said, i answered this question, you ignored this.


Ok,

What is Vmo/Mmo for the Komet?

At what altitude did it exceed the barber pole by 150 knots?

I guarantee when you provide this data, I will prove you wrong once again.


The estimated air speed is not the same as the known speed or IAS so you cant quote on that,


You think EAS means "Estimated Airspeed?"

Really?


We'll get to the rest of your post after you answer the above.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Then why did EA990 suffer in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS?

the 767 cruise speed is 538mph in knots is 467.50

what where the other factors in this case ? is i have asked before



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
Then why did EA990 suffer in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS?

the 767 cruise speed is 538mph in knots is 467.50

what where the other factors in this case ? is i have asked before



If you read the thread, you will note this link posted numerous times -

www.ntsb.gov...

click it.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental
i have told you a me 163 komet has been noted to do what you said, i answered this question, you ignored this.


Ok,

What is Vmo/Mmo for the Komet?


read here homepage.ntlworld.com...



At what altitude did it exceed the barber pole by 150 knots?

doesnt have a barbers pole, how many times to do have to be told about 40's instrumentation, there are notes that it was at approx 15000


I guarantee when you provide this data, I will prove you wrong once again.

you are an idiot if you think this


The estimated air speed is not the same as the known speed or IAS so you cant quote on that,


You think EAS means "Estimated Airspeed?"


Its equivalent air speed, and its 2 am in the morning, ive asked already, what were the other factors involved ?

Really?


We'll get to the rest of your post after you answer the above.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


same aircraft type ie 767, the 990 was a 767 366ER though, different engines modifications etc.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental


At what altitude did it exceed the barber pole by 150 knots?

doesnt have a barbers pole, how many times to do have to be told about 40's instrumentation, there are notes that it was at approx 15000


So, basically, it was a flight test. It can reach that speed.

Do you know why aircraft today, in 2010, all of them, have a barber pole?

Why does the 767, all of them, have a barber pole?

That's right Wee Mad, from Wind tunnel and flight tests.





you are an idiot


Are you aware that courtesy is mandatory at ATS?



The estimated air speed is not the same as the known speed or IAS so you cant quote on that,



You think EAS means "Estimated Airspeed?"



Its equivalent air speed, and its 2 am in the morning,


So, where did I claim any airspeed is "estimated"?

Very good. I see weedwhacker is instructing you well via U2U. Unfortunately, he is also ruining your credibility.


ive asked already, what were the other factors involved ?


Try reading the thread and click source links.

After all, I gave you the courtesy of clicking your source link on the Spitfire and others, unfortunately for you, it backfired in your face.

Do you still think I used google or bing for the above external quotes from your sourced link?




[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


same aircraft type ie 767, the 990 was a 767 366ER though, different engines modifications etc.


And yet you're trying to equate a Komet and Spitfire to a 767.




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


same aircraft type ie 767, the 990 was a 767 366ER though, different engines modifications etc.


And yet you're trying to equate a Komet and Spitfire to a 767.



And while we are equating, let's not forget the webpage master and head of the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" club who wants to equate the crash dynamics of a 10 pound radio-controlled model aircraft traveling at 20 feet per second with a 90 ton 757 traveling at 750 feet per second.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Actually, it goes up to 420 KIAS. But that could just be a typo on your part.


No it wasn't a typo. I was trying to read your performance chart and looking closer it is not a real usable chart but a few speeds put on graph paper in a picture style presentation.

To be a usable chart each small block has a set value, but in this case the speeds noted on the chart are not actually graphed out, so it is just a picture and the actual graph is for show. Also real performance charts have a legend that provide info about the chart like whether it is flight tested or a math formula charted out. I have 25 years of working with performance charts and I have 500 to 1000 that I can scan one if you want to see a real speed chart and how it works.

So I was assuming the 420 was the bold line and thought the next line might have been 10 Knots where the caution ended, but as I said the graph has no relationship with the numbers posted.



Pilots For 9/11 Truth have hit brick walls when attempting to get answers from Boeing, this goes for the people who have tried who actually work there.


So is Boeing part of the conspiracy? Maybe I should find a new employer..Cough…



If it can achieve such speeds and be "easily" controlled --by a pilot who had less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots-- why would Boeing set airspeed limitations so low for their aircraft?


So let’s say a 767 for whatever reason went past 420 Knots, do the wings come off or does it need to go to depo maintenance for an inspection? Design limits are set for the aircraft to reach its desired lifespan. What speed causes the airplane to fail is one I do not know, but maybe Boeing can raise their numbers since I guess we can say it is actually flight tested now.




With that said, based on the closest publicly available data set when comparing apples to apples, Egypt Air 990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS. EA990 is a Boeing 767 (or was).


And at what G force did this failure happen. Can we assume it was in a descent and they tried to recover pulling some good Gs at that high speed? Or was it flying at 1G and lost control?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm just suggesting there are many many factors involved.



Here are just some of the people who have come out and publicly stated the speeds as impossible, improbable, or.....


As I said I got 5000 on both the C-130 and C-141 and I cannot tell you at what speed the airplane would fail. I do know G force limits and so the faster you go the less Gs you can pull without causing structural failure, but to firewall the engines with the purpose of hitting a building at whatever max speed I could reach in a suicide run is not something I could say I have experience in to give any reliable data on the limits, nor do I think the pilots listed can do any better than me in this case either.

I almost feel people talk so long they talk themselves right out of what actually happened. It reminds me of going to the moon and how people fully believe we never went and even prove it many different ways, but the fact is we did go and so it demonstrates that we can disprove anything and everything with the right manipulation of information even when the reality is staring us right in the face.




[edit on 31-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
And while we are equating, let's not forget the webpage master and head of the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" club who wants to equate the crash dynamics of a 10 pound radio-controlled model aircraft traveling at 20 feet per second with a 90 ton 757 traveling at 750 feet per second.


Finally you provide a source. It only took you what? 15 pages?


I can see why...

Here it is for those who are not logged in -

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Rob Balsamo does not equate an RC aircraft to a 757 crash trebor, he is demonstrating an example based on Newton's laws in which the layman can observe.

Again Trebor, do you feel there would be no rotational force associated with the Pentagon "impact"? Or, are you also one of those who claim Newton's laws were suspended on 9/11...

I think most readers already know the answer.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Actually, it goes up to 420 KIAS. But that could just be a typo on your part.


No it wasn't a typo. I was trying to read your performance chart and looking closer it is not a real usable chart but a few speeds put on graph paper in a picture style presentation.


Perhaps this will help?

(use horizontal scroll bar on bottom and scroll right)



To be a usable chart each small block has a set value,


Are you claiming Vd is not the end of the V-G diagram?

Have you clicked the links I provided numerous times in this thread to numerous sources, including the FAA, wiki and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics which prove you wrong?




So I was assuming the 420 was the bold line and thought the next line might have been 10 Knots where the caution ended,


And once again, your assumptions are wrong.



So is Boeing part of the conspiracy? Maybe I should find a new employer..Cough…


Is this your assumption, or can you quote me as making such a statement?




So let’s say a 767 for whatever reason went past 420 Knots, do the wings come off or does it need to go to depo maintenance for an inspection?


According to EA990 data, a 767 suffers in flight structural failure at 5 knots over Vd and at less G's than the aircraft which hit the south tower.

Why do you still base your conclusions on assumption and refuse to review the data? How many times do I need to provide the links for you before you click them?

The rest of your post is redundant, and I would be redundant to answer.

Xtrozero - why do you refuse to put your name on your claims that a 767 is "easy to control" when exceeding 510 knots, pulling G's, by a "pilot" who had zero time in type, and had less experience than a "pilot" who cannot control a 172 at 65 nkots?

I have asked you more than 5 times to put your name on your claims.

Many others disagree with you and they place their name on their claims.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

What are you so afraid of?



[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Are you claiming Vd is not the end of the V-G diagram?


I'm claiming the graph as no relationship with the speeds...not hard to understand...please tell me the value of one block if you think I'm wrong.





I have asked you more than 5 times to put your name on your claims.


Ya I see that since you tend to repeat yourself on many things... So you want me to post my name? And what may I ask you want it for? Unlike you I post to many topic and kind of like my anonymity, call me paranoid...



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm claiming the graph as no relationship with the speeds...not hard to understand...please tell me the value of one block if you think I'm wrong.


767 speeds -

Va/Vra - 290 - Maneuvering speed/Rough Air penetration speed, represented at the point where it says "Maneuvering speed" in the above V-G diagram.

Vmo - 360 - Max Structural Cruise/Max Operating, represented by the end of the "Normal Operating" Green zone and the start of the Caution zone in yellow.

Vd - 420 - Limit Dive speed, represented by the end of the flight envelope to the right and start of the "Structural Failure" red zone - for every aircraft on this planet.

Click here to learn more -

www.abovetopsecret.com...




So you want me to post my name? And what may I ask you want it for?


Because you will be the first who claims to be a pilot (which others can perhaps verify?) and also claims flying an aircraft at Vmo + 150 is "easy".



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
God, I don't know how to say this simpler..
In between those speeds you posted there are little squares on the graph…what is the value of one of those little squares.






Because you will be the first who claims to be a pilot (which others can perhaps verify?) and also claims flying an aircraft at Vmo + 150 is "easy".


Well not everyone can live a special life such as yours where you can post your personal information on the net without risk, and why I would not post has nothing to do with your little crusades here since I care little to take either side, but I do like to jump in now and then when people say stuff like “what the planes did was impossible”…

Invest your energies in not the how but the who…you can how all day and deniability will win out every time without ever getting closer to the puppet masters.



[edit on 31-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
God, I don't know how to say this simpler..
In between those speeds you posted there are little squares on the graph…what is the value of one of those little squares.


They are a fraction of the speeds represented by definition as set by the manufacturer.

Feel free do interpolate. But the fact remains, the speeds represented in the above V-G are as defined and known by every pilot and Aeronautical Engineer on this planet.

Again, do you disagree that Vd is the end of the V-G?

Are you willing to put your name on it?



Well not everyone can live a special life such as yours where you can post your personal information on the net without risk


Yet those who blindly support the OS based on "assumption" (like you) claim the following are "paranoid conspiracy nuts".

patriotsquestion911.com...




Invest your energies in not the how but the who…you can how all day and deniability[sic] will win out every time without ever getting closer to the puppet masters.




07/15/2009 - (Pilotsfor911truth.org) April Gallop, a survivor of the Pentagon Attack on September 11, 2001, is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers and other officials for their possible role in the attack and failure to evacuate the Pentagon. The lawsuit cites Flight Data Recorder Analysis. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have been called upon to sign our names and professional reputations to the analysis which will be presented before a judge in a court of law.


Click here for more -

pilotsfor911truth.org...




[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Ya I see that since you tend to repeat yourself on many things... So you want me to post my name? And what may I ask you want it for? Unlike you I post to many topic and kind of like my anonymity, call me paranoid...


Smart move. Most of the "Truther" organizations like to harass individuals with phone calls or enjoy publishing the names and addresses of the people who voice positions opposite to what the "Truthers" believe the "truth" is.

The fact that "Tiffany" won't post "her" name, background, experience, hours, qualifications, etc to back up "her" claims speaks volumes. Yet, "she" will constantly parrot "her" favorite web site as some sort of bonafide coterie of "experts".

Indeed..."Tiffany" seems to enjoy claiming the privilege of Rule 1 of the "Terms and Conditions for "herself":


1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered form this website to harass, abuse or harm other people.


yet demands others post their name and other personal information themselves if they are to enjoy some level of credibility with "her".

Kettle, pot, black.

I guess if you did post your name here and "she" or the organization "she" affiliates with ends up "harass[ing], abus[ing] or harm[ing]" you in some form or fashion, something could be done - but only on ATS, I would wager. The "Truth" movement only exists on the Internet, so the most you'd get is a yawn.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Darn it!!!
You gave it away...now "Tiffany" and "Rob" or going to huddle together, and re-do their FAKE vg envelope!!

( Remember wjhen I told "her" she'd have to find it "her"self?? Oh, well...at least it's good, and on record NOW so that the rest of the audience can see what schlock and junk that diagram truly is...made up, with "numbers" plugged in as if it is an actual representation for the B-767 :shk: )

Still, I see my other challenges haven't been answered --- not only the reference to the "bug" speeds we use, on airliners (and, in the older days, before we had the FMCs, we had the flipcharts, with the speeds printed on them). I need "Tiffany" to explain their significance, and how they're derived. (Recall, that 'G' is involved...)

ALSO, regarding the FAKE "Vg-diagram" --- I challenged "her" to explain what OTHER 'envelope' factors are missing, from that "chart"....a very major factor, in Taransport Category airplanes.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join