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: 38
141
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Tif you did suggest in your previous arguments that the aircraft starts to break up at 421 knots,



Also, please view this presentation to learn about aerodynamics and why manufacturers set limits for their aircraft.


About learning about aerodynamics, you state manufactures set the limits, the aircraft dynamics set the limit and the manufactures work their limits round the performance of the aircraft in whole, then they and a safety margin. so your V diagrams will all be out.

your disinfo website doesnt work, and doesnt have a number 4 on it when i looked, guess its by one of these "experts" that you have, they cant use a simple web program to put up a static page, but they can tell you the wonders of aircraft dynamics etc.

And stop asking for a pilot to come forward about flying at 150+ VMO, it is very rarely that a commercial pilot would encounter this situation, and would only doing so in an extreme emergency, you get caught flying one of these marvels like a lunatic and you will be canned faster than dog meat. in fact this will be as rare as rocking horse crap.

for your theory on tail design look here


Wee Mad




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

"...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.


Finally after posting it what 3 or 4 times you finally get it...yes it does and why Mach Tuck is so pronounced for the C-141, and your smugness limits your ability to want to understand. Even as something as non 911 related as this you are completely closed minded unless you can wiki or Google it and I'm finally understanding why your views and attitude are the way they are.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:56 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.


Posted by TiffanyInLA

Very good Waypastvne!

You should explain that to Xtrozero -


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






Lol.........



You need to actually read sometime...


[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
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



Well 300 plus mile radar but it really depends on the missile. If they had AIM 9 then that has a range of a little over 10 miles but the common AIM 120 is like 2 times as fast (Mach 4 plus) and 40 mile plus range, so close call with the AIM 9 and moot point with the AIM 120.

But I don’t think the fighters were even aware of planes hitting the towers, nor were they ordered towards the towers to look for aircraft until after all was done, so I don’t think 250kts 430kts or 530kts would mean anything as to whether they were shot down or not.

But I’ll wait on TiffanyInLA's WiKi lookup….


[edit on 5-9-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Dudes (and "dudettes") we have a person, USING the latest "screename" of 'TiffanyINLA' who comes in, to a thread that "she" did not start, in order to offer a host of nonsense, and OFF TOPIC junk.....I really wonder whether or not "Tiffany" is actually a pilot, besed on many things"she" has written....



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I would doubt that she has any flight hours herself, she may have a copy of a flight manual or something similar, but that is about it, other than googling terms. Maybe her boyfriend has one lol


Wee Mad,



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
You know, all you people who say 'The govt is behind 9/11, this was planned, no terrorists,' etc etc etc, you have NO IDEA what youre talking about.
I dont think there is ANY government out there that would even THINK ABOUT killing over 3,000 men, women and children, INNOCENT PEOPLE. What would be the reason? What would be the purpose? Why?
Also, you dont think by this time, someone would have been guilt ridden enough to step forward and tell the press. "Yes, 9/11 was a staged event. It was done because of this and that, and i feel guilty and I want to come clean."
SOMEONE would have stepped forward by now.
No folks, there is no conspiracy here, this was a tragic event, a horrific point in our history, caused by madmen bent on causing destruction. Terrorism brought to the US. We have been targets since the first Gulf War. The USS Cole, and the prior attacks on the WTC.
The govt isnt behind every evil thing that happens to befal us. Take off your tin foil hats and think about this.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


In one of the videos "September Clues" I found disturbing evidence that those were not planes.

check out the bit with the zoom-in, zoom-in (no plane in sight), zoom in BANG plane enters the picture, and then flies a bit too far through a skyscraper, with its nose intact! (like a picture)



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Keetla
 


Ahhhhh...."September Clues"?

A load of junk, that "video" is....and it's about time to spread the word on how BADLY done that series really is.

28 minutes, well worth it to get TRUTH, instead of "Simon Shack's" BS.



Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Well, it appears everyone enjoyed their Labor Day weekend.


Lets catch up, shall we?


Originally posted by weemadmental
About learning about aerodynamics, you state manufactures set the limits, the aircraft dynamics set the limit and the manufactures work their limits round the performance of the aircraft in whole, then they and a safety margin. so your V diagrams will all be out.


Wrong. Please click this link and learn something about aerodynamics, the fundamentals of a V-G and definitions of V-Speeds which comprise a V-G.

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
(page 151)

Then study this diagram and the related V-Speed definitions below.




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.

Then study the report on Egypt Air 990 as compared to the above diagram. EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots into the red "Structural Failure" zone.

Click here to learn more details from Aeronautical Engineers and 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines.

Click


your disinfo website doesnt work, and doesnt have a number 4 on it when i looked, guess its by one of these "experts" that you have, they cant use a simple web program to put up a static page, but they can tell you the wonders of aircraft dynamics etc.


What?

If you're talking about Pilots For 9/11 Truth. It's working just fine for me. Try clicking it.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


And stop asking for a pilot to come forward about flying at 150+ VMO, it is very rarely that a commercial pilot would encounter this situation, and would only doing so in an extreme emergency,


Please show me one that has. You haven't been able to provide any evidence, data, nor precedent for your argument in over 26 pages! All the examples provided by you and your camp have lost control at Vmo+20/30/40/70. Not one has been able to exceed Vmo by such an extreme margin as Vmo+150. You have also not been able to provide one verified expert to support your claims, while there are MANY who disagree with you, and are verified.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


for your theory on tail design look here


Wee Mad


It's not my "theory".

Xtrozero claims Mach Tuck is related to T-Tails only. He is wrong.

He also doesn't understand that "lifting capability" is based on aspect ratio and surface area.

Xtrozero seems to think an empennage has more lifting capability than a wing. He is wrong.

The score remains after THIRTY-EIGHT 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..."

[edit on 8-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Doctor G
 



Why can Mexicans do a job so damn good with no training? Because they believe they can and want to do it for their families and wealth.



You must be talking about the same untrained Mexicans who built my house during the Arizona building boom fifteen years back. The same Mexicans who shot the staples right through the roofing shingles and they all flew off in the first monsoon storm. The same Mexicans who did not shim the front door casing and the only thing holding it to the frame were the two screws going through the lock plate. The same Mexicans who wired the house so badly much of it had to be redone by an Anglo company within the first year. Yeah THOSE Mexicans.

The Mexicans you are referring to hang out with the tooth fairey and Easter bunny and the ignorant middle eastern men who could magically fly a sophisticated air liner through complicated maneuvers with the help of Allah, hatred for our freedom, and the yearning for 72 factory refurbished virgins.

I have a genuine map to the Lost Dutchman Mine you would probably be interested in shelling out a lot of money for.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by groingrinder]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Sorry, Gorman and Groin (add a coupla more names and it might sound like a law firm) the term "ignorant" is not an apt description of the September 11 terrorist hijackers, and such monikers should be ceased ---- that is, for those who actually are, as they claim, "seeking truth".

Further, comparing them to "Mexican"
laborers is not only irrelevant, it's a bit racist, yes?:


....and the ignorant middle eastern men who could magically fly a sophisticated air liner through complicated maneuvers with the help of Allah...



Some more misunderstanding -- and outright mischaracterzations there.

GG, perhaps you missed my little lesson, some pages back? I shall find and link it here, on edit.(***)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(***) Well, no wonder you may have missed it --- way back on 17th August, and Page #9.

That was back before the spamming began ---- of that continuously irrelevant "V-g Diagram"...the one just above, that is NOT an official Boeing document, but doesn't matter anyway. It is being misused in the constant double-speak of the poster; and poster child (it seems) for a particular vanity website that keeps getting it wrong, each and every time, when it comes to matters of aviation. THIS, from a group of alleged "pilots"??


So, unlike certain aforementioned abuser of ATS' T&Cs regarding spamming, I will use the preferred method, and just link to my post, way back from last month. Read, and learn please --- and we'll have you navigating a Boeing 767 in no time flat!


LINK to my post --- keep in mind it is not a fully comprehensive lesson, but just a osrt of introduction. AND, it is "Not To Be Used For Navigation". ( A little inside joke....
)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone of even average intelligence and aptitiude can be easily taught how to "magically fly" an airliner. AND, they made NO so-called "complicated maneuvers".

Where does that particular piece of dreck come from? Oh yes...those websites that know next-to-nothing about aviation and airplanes.

So, indeed....despite your attempt at dersision, no ---- "Allah" (who doesn't exist anyhow, but that's another story) wasn't needed to be called upon for "help". Boeing, and the manuals they wrote, and the many companies that build simulators and the companies that run them, and offer (for anyone who has the $$$) the opportunity to fly them --- THEY provided all of the "help" the terrorists needed.






[edit on 8 September 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I thought this thread had died from inactivity, but I guess not. Tiff, you got it almost all correct but there are a couple of things I'd have to disagree slightly with. First, you say that a wing's lifting capacity depends on area and aspect ratio. WRT aspect ratio, I think you are a little confused. Aspect ratio (the ratio of the wingspan to the mean aerodynamic chord width) affects drag. It is a function of vortex creation. Vortices decrease as aspect ratio increases. That is the reason behind those funny little bent wingtips (winglets) on newer jets. Reduce grag = reduce fuel burn = bigger bucks in airline pockets.
Lifting capacity is more dependant on area and airfoil section for any given speed. Big fat thick wing like a DC-3 is high lift but also high drag. It can carry pretty much anything you can fit in it but only at about 150 knots, at normal cruise. Compare that to the first versions of the Boeing 727 with its thin short swept wing. It was so low lift that they had to put all sorts of lift devices lon it to keep it in the air at landing speeds: Lots of flaps, slats, slots, etc. The landing checklist was not so much calling for "flaps 6" as it was calling for "20 degrees of wing disassembly." But it was fast. Cruise .80 at FL330.
I don't know why there is still an argumnt about flying at VMO+ 150. Either the proponents can find someone who has done it (they can't) or they will not produce such a person. I have never heard of anyone doing it, and that is in 45 year aviation career. There are too many things working against it. Pieces falling off, flutter, mach tuck, compressibility, flight control reversal, divergent PIOs or phugoid oscillations, etc. I have done the mach tuck drills in the sims and that sudden red screen gets your attention.
And somebody is claiming mach tuck only applies to T-tails! I think they are confused about other T-tail problems like the icing problems that are peculiar to T-tails and the "deep stall" issue. Or they may be extropolating from the fact that Learjets, which are T-tailed, are particularly susceptible to tuck, to state that only T-tailed aircraft have the problem. That's simply wrong. The North American Sabre 40 (conventional tail)will tuck.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



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..."


Nope, haven't found one. Now please explain why that makes what happened on 9/11 IMPOSSIBLE. Not highly unlikely, or why you are personally incredulous, but why it makes 9/11 IMPOSSIBLE. You see, as a rational human being I realized that what happened on 9/11 was highly unlikley, hence the suprise when it did happen. But I also know that just because something has happened before does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it CAN'T happen. Only means it hasn't happened yet.

Take me for instance. I checked the records carefully and have determined that I have never died before! Based on you whimsical logic that means I must be immortal!

As for your smarmy little "because the gov't told me so..." comment, yeah, I believe people who work for the government, they are American citizens like me. Now, if you want to go somewhere with that comment - how about you provide absolute and undeniable proof that they are lying.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Well, it appears everyone enjoyed their Labor Day weekend.


Lets catch up, shall we?


I'm glad you had a nice weekend... but there is nothing to catch up to since your last 30 posts are repeats without addressing anything new towards the airplanes hitting the towers.




Then study the report on Egypt Air 990 as compared to the above diagram. EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots into the red "Structural Failure" zone.


I'm having a hard time understanding this point since 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 pilotsfor911truth official statement “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”?




edit on by Xtrozero because: fix quotes



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Lifting capacity is more dependant on area and airfoil section for any given speed. Big fat thick wing like a DC-3 is high lift but also high drag.


Yes, I was thinking chord to camber ratio when I wrote this morning. Sorry, had just woken up.




I don't know why there is still an argumnt about flying at VMO+ 150. Either the proponents can find someone who has done it (they can't) or they will not produce such a person. I have never heard of anyone doing it, and that is in 45 year aviation career.


This might explain why some people still argue in support of the OS even when they feel it's "highly unlikely".


Military Report: Secretly 'recruit Or Hire Bloggers'


Pieces falling off, flutter, mach tuck, compressibility, flight control reversal, divergent PIOs or phugoid oscillations, etc.


Exactly.


I have done the mach tuck drills in the sims and that sudden red screen gets your attention.
And somebody is claiming mach tuck only applies to T-tails! I think they are confused about other T-tail problems like the icing problems that are peculiar to T-tails and the "deep stall" issue. Or they may be extropolating from the fact that Learjets, which are T-tailed, are particularly susceptible to tuck, to state that only T-tailed aircraft have the problem. That's simply wrong. The North American Sabre 40 (conventional tail)will tuck.


Exactly.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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 pilotsfor911truth official statement “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”?



Once again Xtrozero, Your answer is in the report.


At 0150:23, the airspeed reached its peak calculated value of 0.99 Mach, as the airplane descended through about 22,200 feet msl.


Source - www.ntsb.gov...

You should really read it.

Do you know the definition of "peak"?

That means the speed did not go any higher. It couldn't go any faster in the dive.

.99M at 22,000 feet is 425 KEAS.

As you get lower - air density increases rapidly below about 22,000. Of course Mach number will decrease, but so does EAS.

These charts may give you some clues as to why it couldn't go any faster in the dive.





More is explained in detail in the presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" which was also linked for you numerous times. Have you watched it yet? If not, why are you still arguing against it when you haven't even viewed it?



edit on by TiffanyInLA because: typo - clarity



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
And somebody is claiming mach tuck only applies to T-tails! I think they are confused about other T-tail problems like the icing problems that are peculiar to T-tails and the "deep stall" issue. Or they may be extropolating from the fact that Learjets, which are T-tailed, are particularly susceptible to tuck, to state that only T-tailed aircraft have the problem. That's simply wrong. The North American Sabre 40 (conventional tail)will tuck.


Though TiffanyInLA feels the need to say this over and over I posted a number of times on this. My post was about the C-141 and like Learjet (as you suggest) is limited by mach tuck more than other aircraft. My point was that due to the T-tail mach tuck severely limits the C-141, and what I went on to say was I miss spoke in saying it "only" affects T-tails when it affects all aircraft to a point, but it not as limiting on other non-T-tail aircraft, so on the C-141 it was a true limiting factor to our speed which we flew at .74 Mach. We could fly faster but at much higher fuel consumption due to the aggressive mach tuck.

This was only a side note to show a limiting factor that the C-135 (707) did not have, and so the C-135 could cruise at .89 and 500 plus knots.

Here is my statement

Posted by Xtrozero

"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. "

My point was the faster the C-141 went the empennage would generate more lift due to the T tail design and push the nose even more into a Mach Tuck condition.

This is not something TiffanyInLA can read or accept and she has stalled her discussion in all this, and only repeats her posts now..

But maybe you would like to discuss the point that Boeing has not suggested the planes could not reach those speeds, or other Boeing aircraft like the older 707 can pass 500 knots without much difficulty. Also, on the site pilotsfor911truth, that TiffanyInLA is deeply involved with, falsely claims this as their proof “Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure”

In a few posts above I asked TiffanyInLA to once again explain this and so maybe you can help her since she seems to just ignore it.




edit on by Xtrozero because: grammer



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



That means the speed did not go any higher. It couldn't go any faster in the dive.


Since your all about defintions - do you know the difference between the words "did not" and "could not"? Apparently not.


So, when you going to prove 9/11 was impossible? Still waiting for something, anything, besides a spam link to your website.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



In a few posts above I asked TiffanyInLA to once again explain this and so maybe you can help her since she seems to just ignore it.


TLA has been asked to show many things, but chooses only to refer to her own webiste as some kind of response.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join