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: 37
141
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Ok so here's the issue for me then. OP brings up a good point except that I did see planes hit the towers on TV. So where does this leave us? There are plenty of other issues and questions concerning 9/11 without bringing this into the mix. Planes did hit the towers. I can't say what hit the pentagon but there is no doubt in my mind that planes hit the towers. Therefore either they were piloted or remote controlled. All questions should spring from those assumptions? No? If no why not?




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Yes fire and gravity, so once again how does the speed of the airplanes affect this when one of them is offically[sic] stated as hitting at 430 knots? This would suggest even if you proved the other hit at lets say 430 knots too then the results would be the same with the fire and gravity....

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]


F-15's were inbound from Otis.

If the second aircraft were to slow to Vmo, this would be 2.5 LESS miles per minute that the second aircraft would be away from their target.

In other words,

The Otis F-15's would have intercepted the WTC2 aircraft if it remained at Vmo, at more than 10 miles out.

Please review the data.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I guess you are more interested in Mach Tuck on the C-141 and you end up not really knowing what you are talking about even though you can search well.

But it seems you can not comment on the offical[sic] statement of your site? Why is that so?



Have you learned the purpose for the development of the T-Tail yet?

Here's a clue - Conventional Tails were not developed because T-tails are the only design which relate to Mach tuck.



The score remains - (now after TWENTY-FIVE pages)

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

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

Let us also know when you will re-write the books on aerodynamics. Again, feel free to start with the wiki entry for Mack Tuck.

en.wikipedia.org...

Be sure to let them know Mach Tuck is a "condition which only relates to T-tails" and that an aircraft is "easy to control" at any speed over Vmo as long as it doesn't pull any G Force.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Don't back-peddle. You didn't "misspeak". You clearly stated Mach Tuck is a "condition related to T-tail's only". You were flat out wrong.

It is a matter of fact that the "T-Tail" was developed to prevent such pitch over's at high speeds.


This is what I mean you pick and choose what you will , reword, or pull out a few words then attack with them over and over.

So lets look at what I actually wrote and why I said I misspoke while explaining myself 3 or 4 times to you. This is why you create your own wiki reality of the facts and care less now what is actually the truth.

Xtrozero wrote



in the C-141 which is a T tail we had a condition known as “Mach Tuck” this is where the faster the plane went the T tail elevator would carry more lift and the nose would start to tuck and past .78 Mach it would continually get worst, but this condition is related to T tails only.


I misspoke because I was talking about the C-141 and you decided I meant all airplanes with T tails even though my post was about the C-141, and as I said here the T tail would have more lift that greatly increased the Mach Tuck effects....

Give it a rest...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I suppose we'll let the reader decide....



Originally posted by Xtrozero
...we had a condition known as “Mach Tuck”...... this condition is related to T tails only.



So are you now claiming that Mach Tuck does not relate to T-tails only?

[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


F-15's were inbound from Otis.

If the second aircraft were to slow to Vmo, this would be 2.5 LESS miles per minute that the second aircraft would be away from their target.

In other words,

The Otis F-15's would have intercepted the WTC2 aircraft if it remained at Vmo, at more than 10 miles out.



Cool, so I guess this is proof that it was flying as the offical report suggests, otherwise they would not have made it to the tower...good point.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Have you learned the purpose for the development of the T-Tail yet?

Here's a clue - Conventional Tails were not developed because T-tails are the only design which relate to Mach tuck.


Please read this again....

I agree with your link, but the little information you most likely cannot Google is that the Empennage on the C-141 actually had greater lifting capability than the wings and so as the plane went faster it would greatly increase the effects of Mach Tuck (or pitch down).

Sorry if I reached your wiki limits…



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


F-15's were inbound from Otis.

If the second aircraft were to slow to Vmo, this would be 2.5 LESS miles per minute that the second aircraft would be away from their target.

In other words,

The Otis F-15's would have intercepted the WTC2 aircraft if it remained at Vmo, at more than 10 miles out.



Cool, so I guess this is proof that it was flying as the offical report suggests, otherwise they would not have made it to the tower...good point.



Yes, now please provide identification for your argument that the aircraft observed to hit the south tower was a standard 767, tail number N612UA as the FBI and NTSB are having a hard time providing such evidence.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Have you learned the purpose for the development of the T-Tail yet?

Here's a clue - Conventional Tails were not developed because T-tails are the only design which relate to Mach tuck.


Please read this again....

I agree with your link, but the little information you most likely cannot Google is that the Empennage on the C-141 actually had greater lifting capability than the wings and so as the plane went faster it would greatly increase the effects of Mach Tuck (or pitch down).

Sorry if I reached your wiki limits…


You claimed Mach Tuck was a "condition related to T-tails only".

You were wrong.

Plain and simple.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

So are you now claiming that Mach Tuck does not relate to T-tails only?



Yes, I said I misspoke on that and said why and explained, I don't know, five six times now...


Now are you going to comment on …..

Your site suggests this.. “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”

But the flight data and radar showed a different picture.

Flight data showed that the flight controls were used to move the elevators in order to initiate and sustain the steep dive. The flight deviated from its assigned altitude of 33,000 feet (10,000 m) (FL330) and dived to 16,000 feet (4,900 m) over 44 seconds, then climbed to 24,000 feet (7,300 m) and began a final dive, hitting the Atlantic Ocean about two and a half minutes after leaving FL330.[3] Radar and radio contact was lost 30 minutes after the aircraft departed JFK Airport in New York on its flight to Cairo.

At 33,000 feet the aircraft went into a dive and past .86 mach in the first 2000 feet of that descent. It continued to descent to 16,000 feet ever increasing its speed AND then pulled up climbing to 24,000 feet where it started a descent again until it hit the ocean.

So what do you think the speed of the airplane was at 16,000 feet when it pasted .86 mach at 31,000 feet (I’m sure it was well past design limits, and most likely close or well past 500 knots), BUT it still pulled out of the descent and climbed to 24,000 feet. How does this match up with your official statement “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”?

Also how does this even come close to matching the flight profiles of either 911 aircraft? Same planes but extremely different flight profiles to say the least, but I guess that doesn’t matter much to you.


Until you answer this I'm done posting....

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Your site suggests this..


My site?

Which site would "my site" be?

Are you suggesting I'm Rob Balsamo, owner of pilotsfor911truth.org... ?

I'm flattered. After all, he has numerous experts speaking out. Click here to see them.

patriotsquestion911.com...

When are you going to get some verified experts to support your claims?

With that said - have you reviewed the mod warnings on page 26 of this thread?


Originally posted by seagull
ENOUGH!!



You all, every single one of you, will stop the "identity" accusations. I don't, nor do the vast majority of members, give a flying damn who you may or may not be out in the "world".

You will address each other by your ATS screen name, or not at all...

...if you can not do this, don't post in the forum.


Source - www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Until you answer this


What, provide more sources you refuse to click?



I'm done posting....



Wise choice.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


With that said - have you reviewed the mod warnings on page 26 of this thread?

You all, every single one of you, will stop the "identity" accusations. I don't, nor do the vast majority of members, give a flying damn who you may or may not be out in the "world".



I'm not sure why you felt the need to post this....

Isn't it you who wants me to post my name and flying experience to my posts?


The site you are deeply and personally associated with. Now answer my question, or at least say the site is posting miss leading information.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I'm not sure why you felt the need to post this....


You are making an accusation of my identity.

Not only are you wrong, but you are violating Mod warnings. You do not see this?

Others will...


Isn't it you who wants me to post my name and flying experience to my posts?


Actually, I couldn't careless if you did. But if you did, you will be the first to put their name to the claims that an aircraft is "easy" to control at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

I don't blame you for never wanting to put your name to such an absurd claim. After all, weedwhacker and trebor also refuse.

You have already lost all credibility with your "Xtrozero" name and you know it.

You can throw away "Xtrozero" tomorrow and start anew.

This is why you will never put your real name to your claim that the above is "easy".

With that said, these people disagree with you, and the list is growing. Not only do they put their name to their claims, but they also put their faces on their claims and stake their professional reputations.

patriotsquestion911.com...



Now answer my question,


Like every other link I have provided for you, your questions were answered. You just have to click them.

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack

Have you viewed the above presentation? Have you listened to the interviews given by 757/767 Captain's Rusty Aimer and Commander Ralph Kolstad from American and United Airlines?

I already know your answer is no.

Again I ask, why are you arguing information you have not reviewed thoroughly?

How much time do you have in a 757/767?

More than Capt Kolstad or Aimer?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I just caught this as I rarely read Xtrozero's post in full anymore....

Get this...


Originally posted by Xtrozero
...the Empennage on the C-141 actually had greater lifting capability than the wings


Read the above again -

"...the Empennage.... had greater lifting capability than the wings "


So, wings with a greater aspect ratio and surface area, the lifting device for the whole aircraft, have less lift capability than the airfoils with less than a quarter of their size?

I suppose trebor and weedwhacker will agree with you here as well.



Wow.... too funny.

Hey Xtrozero, why not just put the wings on the tail for stabilization, and connect the T-Tail to the fuse at the wing root?

After all, the "Empennage" provides more lift than the wings, according to you.

Imagine how efficient aircraft will be when we put the wings on the tail!



[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Tiffany wont directly answer your question because she has painted herself into a corner.


The only explanation she can give for EA 990 9000 ft climb is the radar data is not accurate, she has already stated this.

And yet she has also stated that the radar data that that estimated UA 175 510 knt speed is dead accurate.

She has herself a conundrum here and she is hoping no one will notice.

Her only defence is to avoid your question and direct you to an PFT link.


-



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
Tiffany wont directly answer your question because she has painted herself into a corner.


I see you also agree that Mach Tuck is "related to T-tails only"?

Not surprised since you still weren't able to identify Vne/Vd.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The only explanation she can give for EA 990 9000 ft climb is the radar data is not accurate, she has already stated this.


It appears you also believe a 757 (aka AA77) climbed to 50,000 ft based on the same radar "subject to potentially large errors". Considering you refused to answer this question the last few times asked, I suspect you'll avoid it again.


And yet she has also stated that the radar data that that estimated UA 175 510 knt speed is dead accurate.


Clearly you are unfamiliar with Primary vs Mode C.

If you feel Mode C radar data is inaccurate, you may never want to buy a ticket on an aircraft which is headed to a major hub that as fog. Those aircraft are separated by less than 10 knots assigned, and less than 4 miles. They cannot see a thing till at least 200 feet above the ground.

Enjoy your flight!



She has herself a conundrum here and she is hoping no one will notice.

Her only defence is to avoid your question and direct you to an PFT link.


Let us know when you have a verified expert to support your claims.

Just one is all we ask.


[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The tail has a greater moment arm in relation to the Cg than than the wings do if the tail is actually creating positive lift instead of negative. when the aircraft is trimmed. If the aircraft goes to a higher speed the aircraft will feel divergent. So yes lift of tail plus moment arm equals more lift than wing.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The tail has a greater moment arm in relation to the Cg than than the wings do if the tail is actually creating positive lift instead of negative. when the aircraft is trimmed. If the aircraft goes to a higher speed the aircraft will feel divergent. So yes lift of tail plus moment arm equals more lift than wing.


Very good Waypastvne!

You should explain that to Xtrozero -

Click here - (really click it)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(you should also read the thread when you return as you just threw Xtrozero under the bus)



So tell us waypastvne, is Mach Tuck "a condition related to T-Tails only"?

Are you talking about "Mach Tuck" above?

Or are you talking about dynamic pressure and one of the reasons for Vmo?



[edit on 5-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:49 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...


I'm sorry that's the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. He keeps calling the plane a "ball" even though you can see the sun glint along the wings in several places. In strong sun light when viewing an aircraft at certain angles the fuselage can reflect so much light as to become a blur with the wings being at side angle looking invisible. Remember American Airline planes are very shiny.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


would the US government not allow a F15 pilot (if it were ordered) to shoot down the airliner at BVR ?, should be easy enough to accomplish which would make the 10 miles an mute point.

Wee Mad



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join