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: 32
141
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
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.


Seems you missed this part trebor -


Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.


Source -
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Again -


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, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for your argument -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Let us know when you will get some evidence for your argument.




[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Seems you missed this part trebor -


Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.


Source -
pilotsfor911truth.org...


No, I didn't miss that part. It was not part of the quote you posted that I referenced, verbatim. Clink on the link.


Again -


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, all suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)


Ahhhh....ok. First you said Boeing needs to release their wind tunnel data, and in the next breath you say "Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing" is part of your "evidence". SO which is it? Do you have Boeing's wind tunnel data or do they need to release it? If you do have it, produce it, please.

You don't and you can't. You are making absolute statements, using the descriptive adjective impossible", without all the data necessary to make such a claim.


Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.


Again, you are saying the speeds are impossible, despite the fact you do not have all the data, e.g. Boeing's wind tunnel data, necessary to make such a claim.

In my world, that is called making stuff up.

All quotes from previous posts in this thread.



[edit on 31-8-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Since I can't take another repost of that speed envelope picture let’s take this on a different tangent...

The official report suggests the heat of the fuel weakened the core structure and once one floor failed it was an easy house of cards since each floor would get hit with more and more force to the point that they were collapsing almost at freefall speed.

Some interesting variables are it could not be predicted as to where the planes would actually hit the towers and so each tower has different effects leading to the same results of collapse. With that said, would a plane flying 250 knots do the same damage as their suggested 500 plus planes? The results of creating tremendous heat would be the same, and so collapse would most likely be the same.

Why then is the speed so important in the first place to create pilots for truth movements. I’m sure the suggested speeds were calculated by some experts and experts have been wrong, so what if the government said that their first calculation were wrong and provided new speeds with the same results? I fail to see how this furthers the advancement of any other theory.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
You are making absolute statements, using the descriptive adjective impossible", without all the data necessary to make such a claim.


trebor - read this again, slowly. I'll bold and underline the part you're missing.

Based on data, precedent and numerous verified experts, it is impossible for a standard 767 to be controllable/stable at the speeds reported by the NTSB.

Let us know when you have some evidence which supports your theory.

"Because the govt told me so..." is not evidence.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I’m sure the suggested speeds were calculated by some experts and experts have been wrong, so what if the government said that their first calculation were wrong and provided new speeds with the same results? I fail to see how this furthers the advancement of any other theory.



If you feel Radar data is inaccurate, you may want to stop flying approaches 4 miles in trail in IMC while being assigned airspeeds.

Especially if you feel there can be a 250 knot discrepancy.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
If AA 11 and UA 175 did not hit the Towers can anyone please enlighten me as to :-

(a) Where did those flights go ?

(b) What did hit the towers ?

(c) How, when and where was the switch made which was completely undetected by radar and ATC ?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

If AA 11 and UA 175 did not hit the Towers can anyone please enlighten me as to :-

(a) Where did those flights go ?

(b) What did hit the towers ?

(c) How, when and where was the switch made which was completely undetected by radar and ATC ?


Well, you could always go to one of the best sources of speculation and conjecture and theories and entertainment on the web - the Pilots for 9/11 Truth web site. There you could read about the incredibly famous John Lear, a member of better-than-good standing in the aforementioned club (being actually interviewed by its creator, founder and head speculator, former Airline Captain Bob Balsamo). Lear, he of the 1,375,836 flight hours in 3,972 types of aircraft, claims it was holograms that slammed into the WTC. Whether or not it was holgraphic technology passed on to us from the aliens he claims live in forts and bases on the dark side of the moon and who communicated to NASA not to send any more moon missions - hence the moon program ending with Apollo 17, remains to be seen.

Isn't credibility great?


[edit on 1-9-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

If AA 11 and UA 175 did not hit the Towers can anyone please enlighten me as to :-

(a) Where did those flights go ?

not into the towers


(b) What did hit the towers ?

Likely an UMV/missle.

Quite possibly nothing at all . . .


(c) How, when and where was the switch made which was completely undetected by radar and ATC ?

i have no idea, but interviewing people who allegedly saw the planes take off would be a good place to start.

You have to try to look at the whole picture when contemplating that day.

Stop focusing on the misdirection and use your heads.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Thanks, but I think I will pass on John Lear.

The point I wish to make is that unless someone can come up with even a halfway plausible account of how UA 175 and AA 11 took off on 9/11 and disappeared, without hitting the Towers; backed up by at least a shred of evidence, then I think discussing whether the pilots were capable of hitting the Towers and whether the planes should have broken up at their estimated speeds is frankly academic hot air.

The planes did hit the Towers and they were going whatever speed they were going without breaking up.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by trebor451
 

The planes did hit the Towers and they were going whatever speed they were going without breaking up.


That is what logical people like to call a bare assertion Alfie.

Here is an analogy for you.

Alfie: "Jesus was resurrected on the third day!"

JPhish: "that's impossible for reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, etc."

Alfie: "well he did come back to life on the third day so all your reasons for why it couldn't have happened are obviously wrong!"

JPhish: "or MAYBE it's a LIE and you should stop believing everything you're told!"




[edit on 9/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Thank you for your responses to my post but nothing you said alters my view that there is a huge amount of evidence to the effect that UA 175 and AA 11 hit the Towers.

In answer to my first point , as to where the flights went if not to the Towers, you simply say you don't know but not to the Towers. How can you know that if you don't know what happened to them ? These were Boeing 767's, large aircraft, they can't just put down in a field or some minor airport somewhere ; and with no radar trace or eyewitnesses.

It seems to me that in 9 years truthers have come up with nothing to disprove those flights hitting the Towers other than wild speculation about pods, holograms etc



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


My "bare assertion" regarding planes hitting the towers is actually based on evidence and seems to be shared by most people on the planet,

If the Towers were hit by missiles, or nothing at all, as you suggest where did this aircraft debris come from ?

sites.google.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I saw the 2nd plane impact, It was definatley a plane I'll tell you that! No missile, or UAV or anything else. It was a plane. Now was it one of the specific flights ? Who knows? Could it have been remote controlled? I think it's a possibility from what I'm seeing on this thread.

Some great info inside this one!!!!



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Reign02
 


If you think UA 175 and AA 11 were remote controlled can you suggest when these aircraft were modified and by whom ? Bearing in mind that the modifications would have to be so extensive that the actual flight crew on 9/11 wouldn't be able to overide it.

And what was the purpose of various people, like Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi, with long pre-existing links to al-queda being on board, having received flight training in Florida ?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


First off I never said that they were remote controlled... You put words in my mouth. (don't do that!) I'm just saying that it is a possibility that they COULD have been. Nobody will ever know for sure. All that we know is something very fishy was going on that day.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Reign02
 


Fair enough but what strikes you as particularly "fishy" about UA 175 and AA 11 hitting the towers, beyond a terrorist atrocity ?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by YouCanCallMeKM
I suggest you watch this video and make of it what you can. I recently came upon it in a ATS thread. It is really mind blowing if anything and changes your whole view on the event.

www.disclose.tv...


For goodness sake.....

Thank you for this link.

I have not seen anything like this. But then again, I haven't really looked for this kind of thing, either....

I can't believe how well presented this is. How can anyone really debunk this?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Reign02
 


Fair enough but what strikes you as particularly "fishy" about UA 175 and AA 11 hitting the towers, beyond a terrorist atrocity ?



Concur. What *is* fishy is the belief that these aircraft could have been easily and without notice converted to remote-controlled aircraft. The aircraft (times 4) would have to have been virtually taken apart to access actuators, control rods, linkages, electronics, computers, etc. You just don't slap a box in there and screw in a cannon plug.

Plus, the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" club claim that even their best, top-gun-best -of-the-best-life-long-career pilots with a bajillion flight hours in every flying machine made since Da Vinci's blueprints couldn't have done it - what makes *anyone* think that a remote control 767 with the lag and latent delays inherent to data-link remote-control data stream could have done it? If their Aces of the Bases can't hit a 208 foot-wide 1,300 foot tall skyscraper at 450 knots, how can they expect a remote control aircraft to do it?

The Pilots club, once again, doesn't seem to have its collective stories together.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


my point exactly it is odd how you are so obviously not any kind of expert and by posting these graphs only further any confusion a member might have .

the facts you think you have are misinterpeted info from situations that do not mimic the 9/11 flights in any way

why would the government go through all the trouble to disguise airplanes yada yada there are far less suspiscious avenue to travel to much BS to swallow just BS fabrications



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by thegoodearth
 


I had a look at your link but was not prepared to endure more than 2 minutes of 22 minutes. As soon as the guy said he was an " electrical engineer" and recommended "September Clues" I lost interest.

Does it seem likely to you that all video footage of the Towers on 9/11 has been modified ? Every last camcorder ? If you think it has then you live in a world I don't recognise.




top topics



 
141
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join