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: 31
141
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
and re-do their FAKE vg envelope!!





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...

Let us know when you guys get one verified pilot to support your theories.

So far, you fail.


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.




[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Feel free do interpolate


I can't interpolate and that is the problem with the chart, and I guess you can't either since I asked you 3 times to give me the value of a block...(your style)

So it is not a chart at all but a picture...so where did this "chart" come from?





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


Am I not talking to you, did I call you a nut, did I express that anyone on your list is a nut etc...

Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me blind to it all, but that is your defensive ploy to label me that way...we see it also when people are called sheep because they disagree with another.

The problem with all these conspiracies is only one can be correct and so the vast majority is wrong, also most (like yourself) stovepipe themselves down their narrow paths avoiding all the variables that confound their theory, and that my friend is where we differ. I see all the variables and see where they spin these conspiracies out of control.






[edit on 31-8-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So it is not a chart at all but a picture...


Exactly. It's not a chart. It is a picture, a diagram, a V-G Diagram - an Envelope. A flight Envelope.

Learn the basics here from FAR § 23.333 Flight envelope -

www.access.gpo.gov...

and here from an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...


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.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   


So far, you fail.


Lol am I talking to a twelve year old.... ok I failed... Failed at what since I’m not pushing a agenda or conspiracy.



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.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Exactly.


What I am saying here is there are too many variables as I suggested in my last post, but you on the other hand have stovepipe your views to suggest these guys were flying 500+ knots the whole time which I agreed would be impossible, but to fly 250+ through different phases of their flight and then firewall their engines on the run in would not be difficult and even shows the inexperience in their flying, where an experience pilot would most likely maintain a steady high rate of speed to get the job done and not risk structural failure before hitting their target.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Lol am I talking to a twelve year old.... ok I failed... Failed at what since I’m not pushing a agenda or conspiracy.


I'll let you in on a little secret, the only people pushing a "Conspiracy" is the government.


A "conspiracy" is two or more people acting together.

How many "hijacker" were there?

That's a "Conspiracy".




....to suggest these guys were flying 500+ knots the whole time which I agreed would be impossible,


I'm not "suggesting" anything.

It is what has been calculated by the NTSB via Radar and Video analysis.

But I'm glad you finally agree 500+ knots is impossible.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Since it appears some of our OS supporters are a bit confused by the pretty colors and "blocks" in the above diagram, I put this together from the V-G diagram offered by the FAA which is used as an additional educational tool for students to learn the composition of a V-G.



Hope this helps.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

you do understand that by asking people to provide a SOURCE that does not exsist you are not proving your theory correct rather it sounds as though you are simply playing a childish game of na ah .


there is no definitive answer to your structure failure as it was an isolated incident with no comparison no matter what YOUR facts show...

but this story of it not being the jetairliners is truly just stupid



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplescorpio
there is no definitive answer to your structure failure as it was an isolated incident with no comparison no matter what YOUR facts show...




Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.


Source - pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
where an experience pilot would most likely maintain a steady high rate of speed to get the job done and not risk structural failure before hitting their target.



You bring up a good point here -

Supposedly these "hijackers" had their Private and Commercial Pilot certificates.

All pilots are taught to never exceed the Max Operating of the aircraft or they will put the airframe in jeopardy and risk structural failure. This is drilled into every student pilot's head. Agreed? Good.

Now, if these "hijackers" supposedly had their ratings, and were really flying standard 767's, why would they put their airframe in jeopardy risking structural failure before completing their mission?

Certainly 360 knots is sufficient to ram the WTC or the Pentagon, yes?

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
It really looks like they were flying the planes just like they would on a flight simulator. They found the software that the terrorists used to learn to fly. I propose that anyone could accomplish the mission they had with no actual flying time at all. Non-pilots who use flight simulators always max everything out when flying. Going along with the recommended speeds is very boring. I bet they crashed into the twin towers thousands of times on the simulator. I bet they could have done it blindfolded.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Your condescending tone is NOT attractive here. It might work with your "buddies" at the "pilot's" site
... but, alas, IF you truly get all of your information from there, then no wonder you keep spouting the same nonsense!!!

Let's look at your latest insulting-to-our-intelligence attempt:


Since it appears some of our OS supporters are a bit confused by the pretty colors and "blocks" in the above diagram, I put this together from the V-G diagram offered by the FAA which is used as an additional educational tool for students to learn the composition of a V-G.


Your entire sentence, in all its glory, uncut.
________________________

Realized had to edit, here...to highlight in YOUR OWN WORDS, in quoted text above, the intellectual disconnect (lie)? Freudian mistake?

"...the V-G diagram offered by the FAA....."

Hmmmmm.....
_________________________


I won't re-post the generic line drawing...seen it, know it, it's no great shakes, because they are ALL virtually the same. It's a matter of simple physics, as they apply to aerodynamics.

It is the ASSUMPTIONS used here (attempted) that are the problem....and the INTERPRETATION (incorrect) that PfT use that is the problem.

However...referring once again to the black-and-white generic V-g graph....I noticed where it says "Boeing 767"


Are you (on behalf of "PfT"...for I do NOT wish to accuse YOU personally of providing blatantly falsified data in the form of a chart that has been altered with additonal and unoriginal text) willing to maintain that THAT is an officially produced and published Boeing chart or graph???

Being very careful with your response....as per the ATS policy of "knowingly posting incorrect information", and all that of course....

I've had over two decades of a passing sort of familiarity (being humble, of course) with MANY different publications from several different commercial passenger jet manufacturers....unfortunately, MOST of the audience that is catered to by the "PfT" do not have the benefit of that sort of lifetime's and career experience, so they can be easily hornswoggled....

Let's see what is actually available for free (no copyright) and online, from official BOEING sources, and compare, shall we????:

A simple matter to peruse the Boeing website, and find THIS LINK so that the ATS audience can look for themselves, peruse at their leisure, and see how the "PfT" are all wet......


Later, if I have time, I will destroy their "argument", in their attempt to use the Egypt Air flight 990 as a comparable example for United flight 175......





[edit on 31 August 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If we are pointing out the flaws in Tiffany's "Faux Boeing Variable Increment V-G Chart" then let us not forget this one:

Never Exceed Speed [marked here with the scarlet letter A]Should come before the giant red wall of structual failure [marked here with the letter B]. Not after.

I'm pretty sure Boeing will back me up on this.




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
weedwhacker,

It appears you still are not familiar with the definitions of V-Speeds.

Let me help you once again -

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...

Click here to learn the speeds -

rgl.faa.gov... ory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302E51A401F11A8625718B00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf

Click here to learn the various definitions of V-speeds.

en.wikipedia.org...


Weedwhacker, you keep claiming the above diagram is "fake". That somehow the speeds represented are different from what the manufacturer has set. You are wrong.

You also claim to be a 767 pilot, but you have not been able to produce an "official" Boeing 767 diagram to prove my diagram "fake".

You seem to be the only pilot on this planet who does not know that if the V-speeds are known, you can plot your own V-G Diagram/Flight Envelope.

Let us know when you guys get one verified pilot to support your theories.

So far, you have failed. Repeatedly.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
If we are pointing out the flaws in Tiffany's "Faux Boeing Variable Increment V-G Chart" then let us not forget this one:

Never Exceed Speed [marked here with the scarlet letter A]Should come before the giant red wall of structual failure [marked here with the letter B]. Not after.

I'm pretty sure Boeing will back me up on this.


So, are you claiming structural failure occurs before Vne/Vd?

Click here and learn from an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...

See here the original diagram.

www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com...

The "Never Exceed Speed" they are pointing to is the Structural failure zone.

Were you able to learn the aviation definition of Vd yet?

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
The above V-G diagrams I put together rather quickly, for speeds only, based on definition.

I took a bit more time and put together one with the Load Factor limits for Transport Category Aircraft, and removed the confusing "Never Exceed Speed" pointer from the original, since it appears it is confusing for the OS Supporters.

- Note the new Load Factor limits on the left which accurately represent Transport Category Aircraft -



It's also posted at pprune without any objections.

www.pprune.org...

Let us know when you guys are going to edit wiki, the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, and inform every flight school on this planet that they have it all wrong, including the pilots at pprune who also know that you can plot your own V-G if the speeds are known.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
off topic reply self deleted.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 





So, are you claiming structural failure occurs before Vne/Vd?


No your graph is claiming that, cant you you read your own graph? It claims that VNE is 4 variable increment units beyond structural failure.



Were you able to learn the aviation definition of Vd yet?


Even better I have a dynamic understanding of it.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

No your graph is claiming that, cant you you read your own graph? It claims that VNE is 4 variable increment units beyond structural failure.


No it doesn't.

The original -




The limit airspeed (or redline speed) is a design reference point for the airplane—the subject airplane is limited to 225 m.p.h. If flight is attempted beyond the limit airspeed, structural damage or structural failure may result from a variety of phenomena.


Source -
www.free-online-private-pilot-ground-school.com...

If you click on the original image, your "point A" is at 240 mph. Your "point B" is 225.

They inserted the text "Never Exceed Speed" as a reference to the "Structural Failure Zone", not the actual Vne line, obviously. Anyone with a working knowledge of the V-G will understand this.

Sorry it confused you. I've removed it.




Were you able to learn the aviation definition of Vd yet?


Even better I have a dynamic understanding of it.



So how come you don't know that Vd is the end of the V-G diagram for every fixed-wing aircraft on this planet and is accurately represented by 420 knots on the V-G diagram plotted above for the 767?

Click here and read page 151 -

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Later, if I have time, I will destroy their "argument", in their attempt to use the Egypt Air flight 990 as a comparable example for United flight 175......


Its really very simple. "Tiffany", through "her" quote from "her" favorite web page:


Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.


(found here)

claims that the Egypt Air 990 incident is the standard, the benchmark, the only measure, and by using that most definitive adjective impossible, the absolute sole criterion by which all aircraft transiting the ether will suffer catastrophic in-flight damage from overspeed or overstress-related damage. No if's, and's or buts. No variables need apply. *Any* aircraft, if it exceeds what Egypt Air 990 experienced, will break. Fail. Crash. Come apart. Cease to exist as an aeronautical flying machine.

After all, they believe when an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.

The bloviating barnstormers at "Tiffany"'s favorite web page like to deal in absolutes - no wiggle room, not ability for the variables of flight to be considered. If EA990 failed at this exact point, there is no chance, it is impossible for any aircraft ever to proceed beyond that point.

Had this club been formed earlier in history, I have no doubt they would have said it was "impossible" for Aloha Air flight 243 to have landed safely after 18 feet of its upper fuselage ripped away while in flight. I have no doubt they would have said it was "impossible" for a Montana Air National Guard F-106 to have landed in a snow-covered field, in one piece, minus its pilot who ejected at 15,000 ft while in a flat spin. The aircraft was jacked up, the landing gear was lowered, it was loaded on a rail car, taken to a repair depot and returned to service a year later. I have no doubt they would have said it was "impossible" for the Pan AM 707 flying from Paris to NY, and when it encountered CAT and began a dive to the deck, recovery occurred after a pull of 4.5 g’s - the rated limit of the aircraft was 3.75 g’s.

I could go on. "Impossible" is a slippery slope and difficult to prove in many cases, especially in aviation. That is only one reason why the crew over at "Tiffany's" favorite web page are full of it.



new topics




 
141
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join