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: 33
141
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 



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


Couldn't have put it more succinctly.

Often, in order to COUNTER the junque' that is spewed, and then posted/linked to/referenced here on ATS, it requires a great deal of explanation and counter posts.

It is both a TRIBUTE to the flexibility and accessibilty of the ATS, and the way its STAFF accomodate....compared to just about every other 'similar' Web-Oriented Forum in existence!!!


___

ARRRgh!

Typos!

The bane of my existence! (Or is it "existance"??) [***]


[***]

Just checked....FWIW...no 'a" in "existence".

See? We've learned something, haven't we??

Part of my 'mission'....





[edit on 1 September 2010 by weedwhacker]




posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02
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!!!!


people think they saw a plane hit the pentagon too.

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 9/1/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Joking, right???

Trying to equate a video of a guy doing a COIN trick? To an AIRPLANE that hit the PENTAGON???

How desparate have the "truthers" become??

Just IGNORE the radar evidence and the eyewitness evidence, to include NOT ONLY the laypeopeple, but also professionals, to include the ANG pilots, in the C-130, AND the ATC personnel.

(THIS is what happens, when people just read the "conspiracy" websites, without proper experience and comprehension of real world events, and the types of real-world exposure that that will provide.....)






[edit on 1 September 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Don't listen to anything myself or anyone says on the subject concerning 9-11.

This video will teach you what misdirection is and how it is employed properly.

After learning about misdirection, use your own logic and come to a conclusion about 9-11.

Watch the video weedwhacker, you might learn something.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Joking, right???

Trying to equate a video of a guy doing a COIN trick? To an AIRPLANE that hit the PENTAGON???


No different than Captain Bob Balsamo claiming the Pentagon aircraft, with its right wingtip impacting the building first because of the angle of approach, should have cartwheeled horizontally into the building.

Why?

Because that is what his Radio-Controlled model (now we know where he gets his aeronautical acumen) does when it crashes that way.

The fact that one weighs 10 pounds and is traveling at 20 feet per second and the other weighs 90-tons and is traveling 750 feet per second is totally lost on him.



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Just dropping in to check the score -

I see it hasn't changed.

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 the argument of those who blindly support the OS -

"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 1-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing


With Boeing data you yourself said you don't have.


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.


Unmentioned are the thousands of aircraft throughout aviation history that have flown beyond their "design limits" and landed safely with many flying again, proving that the aircraft in question could indeed fly the speeds and altitudes on 9/11.


Numerous verified experts


Like Bob Balsamo, whose last foray into the real world resulted in a US District Court Federal Judge throwing out the lawsuit he fervently contributed to with the determination "...the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy..."factually frivolous"..."clearly baseless", that is, "fanciful", fantastic" or "delusional"...factually baseless".

Or like John Lear and his dark-side moon bases and his aliens telling NASA to stop flying to the moon, etc.

Or like the incredible stick-and-rudder barnstormers who can't hit the proverbial broad side of a barn, or in this case a 208 foot wide and 1,300 foot tall skyscraper, with a 767.

How's that box score looking now, Tiff? "Cynical delusion and fantasy". That about sums things up.

It goes to the heart of this whole matter...credibility. You simply don't have any. You come to web discussion boards like ATS or Loose Change or JREF or create your own because no competent authority will take you seriously because...well...your claims are made up of "cynical delusion and fantasy".

You spend your time here because it is useless to spend it anywhere else.

See ya on your next visit.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


So, you reduce every argument to your own subjective view of credibility, and ignore the actual data they present? How typical! Character assassination is the only thing you have going for you.

I have to conclude, the scoreboard on this thread is not looking in favor of the OS followers. All I've seen is evasion of pivotal questions, and ad hominem attacks coming from them.

ETA - thousands of aircraft exceeding their design limits and being just fine, you say? How many of those flew at 150 knots over their design limits? How many bulky non-aerodynamic passenger aircraft are among those "thousands" of aircraft having exceeded their design limits by even a small margin?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Son of Will]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



I didn't say I "feel" anything, I'm asking what does the speed prove either way. I'm not suggesting any speed, but I did say that a flight profile could be done at slower speeds and still hit the towers on the run in at 500 plus in a Kamikaze type scenario.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You come to web discussion boards like ATS or Loose Change or JREF or create your own because no competent authority will take you seriously because...well...your claims are made up of "cynical delusion and fantasy".

You spend your time here because it is useless to spend it anywhere else.


Perhaps, it is the many OS believers that are "cynical delusion and living in a fantasy,”
because they can not handle the truth.
Anyone who believes commercial airliners were designed to do G-force maneuvers and pull sharp banks has never done any real research in aviation.

Real pros read your laughable nonsense and will not post in here, because most of you OS believers will not comprehend the real facts, as many of you have well demonstrated.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by impressme]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

[edit on 31-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



I didn't say I "feel" anything, I'm asking what does the speed prove either way. I'm not suggesting any speed, but I did say that a flight profile could be done at slower speeds and still hit the towers on the run in at 500 plus in a Kamikaze type scenario.


This is what you said -


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.


Not only was it in a "tight turn", it was pulling out from a dive, at 500+ knots. It was traveling 85 knots more, and pulling more G's, than EA990, a 767 which suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

Now check the data. I've given you the links numerous times.


@trebor -

Your "verified expert" level remains at 0 because of the fact people like William "Pinch" Paisley cannot even obtain an FAA pilot certificate. Others who claim to be a pilot and blindly support the OS, refuse to put their name on their claims.

Your data remains at 0 because you have no data.

Your precedent level also remains at 0, because every single piece of evidence you have tried to present as precedent prove an aircraft cannot exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots without losing control, shedding parts, needing 30,000+ feet to recover, or crashed, well below Vmo+150. The one aircraft that did exceed it's Mmo by a wide margin was admittedly modified.

Again, the only thing you have REMOTELY close to a "verified expert" is perhaps William "Pinch" Paisley - a rabid Bush supporter who couldn't even make it to the front seat, let alone Top Gun, nor obtain an FAA Airman certificate. This is why your "Verified Expert" column remains at zero.

And yet you call these people "barnstormers who couldn't hit a barn".

patriotsquestion911.com...

Many have landed on Carrier's, from the FRONT SEAT!


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

[edit on 2-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

@trebor -

Your "verified expert" level remains at 0 because of the fact people like William "Pinch" Paisley cannot even obtain an FAA pilot certificate.


Why is it so essential that someone have an "FAA certificate" to opine on these matters? If that is the case, I would expect you to purge every single member of your "Pilots" club who does not have an FAA certificate, even your military aircrew. Get back to us on that, will ya?

Speaking of FAA certs.....where's yours? A screen grab of it would be nice - just to establish your bonafides, you know, since apparently nobody without an FAA cert is worth anything.


Your precedent level also remains at 0, because every single piece of evidence you have tried to present as precedent prove an aircraft cannot exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots without losing control, shedding parts, needing 30,000+ feet to recover, or crashed, well below Vmo+150. The one aircraft that did exceed it's Mmo by a wide margin was admittedly modified.


"Captain" Bob Balsamo was the one who claimed when an aircraft hits its "design limits", it breaks. Period. As has been pointed out countless times here and on multiple other discussion boards, that is about as wrong and incorrect as anything can be.


Again, the only thing you have REMOTELY close to a "verified expert" is perhaps William "Pinch" Paisley - a rabid Bush supporter who couldn't even make it to the front seat, let alone Top Gun, nor obtain an FAA Airman certificate. This is why your "Verified Expert" column remains at zero.


lol...so the *only* person who claims you are lunatics is this Paisley dude, huh? Judge Chin seems to disagree ("cynical delusion and fantasy"). So there are two right there!


And yet you call these people "barnstormers who couldn't hit a barn".


*I* don't say that! THEY do! THEY are the ones who say they could not hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide building with a 767! Don't grump at ME...grump at THEM! A standard runway is only 150 - 200 feet wide - if your experts can't hit a target as big as the WTC, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger!


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


Not my argument...Its your argument...I just pointed out your own claims....that you do not have Boeing's wind tunnel and flight data, yet you still claim something is "impossible". Your claim when an aircraft hits its design "limits", it breaks. Period. Which is not at all true in anyone's world. Your own "expert pilots " (cough cough) who say they could not hit the side of a 1,300 foot tall, 208-foot wide skyscraper with a 767.

If you don't like what I'm saying, go after "Cap't Bob Balsamo", Tiff...not me.

Still, it is good to see you back here at ATS arguing so vociferously, since everyone knows the capacity of the ATS discussion board to change global opinion and effect societal change on the planet. You have to start where you have to start, I guess.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
How much velocity past VMO, that has been documented by an unmodified and similar airplane will poo-poo the pilots for truth's claims?



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


your arguement ?

you mean the story you have fabricated just askin??

your arguement is a farse and will in time die on the vine as all lies do.......



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
How much velocity past VMO, that has been documented by an unmodified and similar airplane will poo-poo the pilots for truth's claims?


If "Captain Bob Balsamo" of the Pilot's club could state, without a doubt, when an aircraft would break, we could answer that question.

Oh. Wait. He has.


Again, its not so much duration rather than when it hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period.


(Hate to pimp his site, but nobody will click on this anyway)

So there we have it. Aeronautical engineers all over the world are scrubbing the term "metal fatigue" from their manuals and books since there is no such thing any more. A soon as an aircraft wing, tail, fuselage, empenage, whatever reaches its "design limits", it breaks.

Fact of the matter is aircraft, through FAA and manufacture flight test requirements, must exceed the maximum operating speed on regular flight test sorties to determine the higher restrictions. This proves, without a doubt, that the aircraft in question can and have flown faster than VMO. Does that mean the flight test aircrew flew 150 knots beyond VMO? Dunno...and neither does Captain Bob Balsamo, but not having the data for something like that hasn't stopped him before from stating absolutes.

Also, the numbers for airspeeds Captain Bob Balsamo is using are approximate. Since the flight data recorders for the two WTC aircraft ended up becoming lost in the 500,000 tons of WTC wreckage, various alternate means have had to be used to estimate the aircraft speed. Video analysis, speed determinations from raw radar returns (which would have been interesting based on radar sweep updates, ground clutter, buildings, etc in lower Manhattan).

The NIST estimates are fine by me - 443 (plus/minus 30 mph) mph, or 385 knots for AA11 (North tower) and 542 (plus/minus 24) mph, or 471 knots for United 175 (South Tower).

Both those airspeeds would be well within any operating envelope for these 767.


[edit on 2-9-2010 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

And yet you call these people "barnstormers who couldn't hit a barn".


*I* don't say that! THEY do! THEY are the ones who say they could not hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide building with a 767! Don't grump at ME...grump at THEM! A standard runway is only 150 - 200 feet wide - if your experts can't hit a target as big as the WTC, don't blame me. I'm just the messenger!


I see you don't know what happens in terms of control at varying/excessive airspeeds.

Here, inform yourself -

Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


NASA Flight Director Confirms Aircraft Speed As" Elephant In The Room"


Credentials of the above -

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career


The score remains -

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 the argument of those who blindly support the OS -

"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 2-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by earthdude
How much velocity past VMO, that has been documented by an unmodified and similar airplane will poo-poo the pilots for truth's claims?


If "aptain Bob Balsamo" of the Pilot's club could state, without a doubt, when an aircraft would break, we could answer that question.

Ok I'll go with 350 knots then. Still researching.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by earthdude]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

Perhaps, it is the many OS believers that are "cynical delusion and living in a fantasy,”
because they can not handle the truth.


I think we all can handle the truth, but so many of you just seem to not understand that the divergent thinking used in these theories lead to logistical nightmares. Let’s say Chaney is the king pin in all this. One direction he sets up black ops to support an extremist organization with money, visa, training etc to accomplish how the official report suggests it played out. In this case the logistics is a few leaders in the extremist group to get the needed men willing to kill themselves for a cause and to facilitate the rest. What we have here are just a few people in a very small foot print scenario.

Now we have Chaney still the king pin but he fakes it all with military C-135 aircraft, det cord and missiles etc. Wow! Now we have a real mess….

1. Where did the airlines and people go?

2. Why was the C-135 and crew not missed or accounted for in anyway?

3. How many people does it take, in the whole logistical chain, to manufacture/transport/wire up the trade centers? 1000s?

4. How many people does it take to get military aircraft to do the dirty deeds?

5. How do they time and predicted the exact placement of the extreme variable of where the airplanes would hit the buildings?

6. And many many more questions....

The bottom line is in the second scenario and all these other theories is that the logistics just gets crazy to not have people come forward in droves to say they were a part of it. (Well unless they were John Lears’ aliens) This is saying that the Government is flawless but can’t get it right with having a plane with windows, or slipping the right engine/gear parts into the pentagon rubble, or suggesting they flew at speeds impossible to keep the plane together, so we have a government that can execute a flawless mission using 1000s of people over a decade of preparation but can’t get oblivious and simple things right.

This leads me to the Occam's Razor principle in the reason we cannot find any of this massive logistics needed is because there isn’t any and so the terrorist theory still stands. Now whether Chaney is involved is still up in the air.




[edit on 2-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

How much velocity past VMO, that has been documented by an unmodified and similar airplane will poo-poo the pilots for truth's claims?



Ok I'll go with 350 knots then. Still researching.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by earthdude]


You need to find an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, pulled G's, remained stable/controllable, and survived.

No one has been able to find one in 33 pages of this thread alone.

All aircraft that have been provided as examples by those who blindly support the OS, have exceeded their Vmo by 20-30-40-70 knots. All lost control, many needed 30,000+ feet to recover, many suffered in flight structural failure.

Some even suffered in flight structural failure below Vmo. This is why Maneuvering speeds are set.




@trebor - this is from page 22. You may want to read it this time.

"Also note the quotation marks surrounding "design limit" in your un-sourced quote. That should clue you in that your source is talking about the specific object. Not a limit set by the manufacturer.

Again, when an object breaks - it's reached it's "design limit", I suppose you disagree.

EA990 reached it's "design limit" at 5 knots over the manufacturer's set limit. AA587 reached it's "design limit" well below Vmo.

Do you understand what I just said? Read it again.


Real pilots will get it though. Call your local flight school for a lesson."


Source - www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by earthdude

How much velocity past VMO, that has been documented by an unmodified and similar airplane will poo-poo the pilots for truth's claims?



Ok I'll go with 350 knots then. Still researching.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by earthdude]


You need to find an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, pulled G's, remained stable/controllable, and survived.
/pg22#pid9479102


I don't know about the stable/controlled part. The data from flight 93 suggests little control or stability was had. From the data you helped provide I can surmise that it was almost a miracle the planes made it to the towers. All the greatest pilots in the world can tell me certain things cannot be done and I still maintain they could be wrong. The terrorists got lucky. Luck does not show on the graphs.




top topics



 
141
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join