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: 39
141
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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.

She is making pilots look like fools. Pilots on her site are flying us around and they can't use logic? This makes me scared to fly. She is discrediting the truth movement. She is an agent of the people behind the 9-11 attack who are attempting to spin doctor the real truth. Evil masquerading as good while Compiling lists of those who deny the OS.




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
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. "


The above is not a "mis-speak". It was flat out wrong.

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

I told you it wasn't "related to T-tails only". You balked.

I gave you a source. You then accused me of "googling" my information and that the sources are wrong.

I gave you more sources. Then you claimed you "mis-spoke" and still accused me that my knowledge only comes from google.

You are perhaps the most intellectually dishonest person in this whole debate, that's some pretty big shoes to fill considering weedwhacker is pretty darn dishonest. You're even backpedaling from your initial statement that 500+ knots would quickly go from "not too difficult to impossible to accomplish" when I showed you the aircraft did not take a straight path.and G loading was involved.

You initially claimed "Vmo+150 is 'easy' if the pilot maintains a relatively straight path".

Jetstream - another pilot on another thread also disagrees with you -

An airplane-any airplane-is a balance of forces. Lift Drag thrust and gravity. The controlability of the airplane is designed within a certain speed range and weight range.

[snip]

If you exceed airspeed-and at low altitude this is the major limitation on the airframe, you run out of pitch authority to keep the nose down.
The horizontal stabilizer of an airplane-the tail mounted wings- have up and down limits. these limits are mechanical stops.


[snip]

As the plane goes faster it needs less tail down force. As you increase speed beyond the design limits you need more nose down. At a certain speed you will run out of nose down authority.And the Aircraft will climb regardless of your nose down force on the yoke-simply because the aircraft is not built to exceed or fly 200 kts outside of its flight envelope.
Thats just a cost for no gain.

..... the plane CANNOT maintain level flight at a speed almost 230 mph faster than its design maximum. The control surfaces do not have the necessary "bite" into the air to allow you to do that.


In other words Xtrozero, an airplane cannot fly at any speed it wants over Vmo as long as it does not change direction or pull G's, as you contend.

Please learn the four forces of flight and the reason manufacturers set limits for their aircraft.



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.


At what altitude? Was that TAS? IAS? Groundspeed? Please post a source.


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”


You confuse the word "precedent" with "proof".

Please let us know when you have either for your claims. Your evidence still remains at Zero.

Also, please try to minimize your strawman arguments.


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.


It's been explained to you ad nauseam. You just don't like the answers and refuse to click source links.

Have you read the NTSB reports? Viewed the presentation in which you argue against? Why not?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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


It is over 600 Knots at 22,000 and the plane didn't come apart, but continued to 16,000 feet and pulled up back to 24,000 feet?

Your diagram is 420 KIAS, so it is also based on sea level pressures, or is it KEAS too?.... you jump around to get the number you want...

There is a reason the plane would not go pass .99M. We also know that Mach converts to a higher knot speeds the lower we go in alt, so saying peak speeds of .99 at 22,000 feet or 600 plus knots does not suggest the plane was not flying .9M at 16,000 feet with a lower KIAS but higher KEAS than at 22,000 feet.

I just do see anything referring to KEAS as the peak speed in these reports that all seem to deal with either Mach, IAS or sometimes True, plus pilots and people in general do not deal with KEAS.


edit on 8-9-2010 by Xtrozero because: grammer



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
It is over 600 Knots at 22,000 and the plane didn't come apart, but continued to 16,000 feet and pulled up back to 24,000 feet?

[snip]

There is a reason the plane would not go pass .99M. We also know that Mach converts to a higher knot speeds the lower we go in alt, so saying peak speeds of .99 at 22,000 feet or 600 plus knots does not suggest the plane was not flying .9M at 16,000 feet with a lower KIAS but higher KEAS than at 22,000 feet.


Again Xtrozero, why are you arguing information which you have not reviewed thoroughly.

.99M at 22,000 feet is 425 KEAS. This calculation takes into consideration Compressibility.

Do you know the definition for EAS? Do you know what Compressibility is?

EA990 reached a peak speed of 425 KEAS.

If you contend the aircraft climbed for a second dive, you are basing that contention on radar in which the NTSB admits has potentially very large errors.

This same radar says American 77 climbed to 50,000 feet.

Do you contend a 757 can reach 50,000 feet? Especially when the FDR data shows it never climbed above FL350?



Your diagram is 420 KIAS so it is also based on sea level pressures, or is it KEAS too.... you jump around to get the number you want...


It is based on the speeds given by Boeing in the 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet A1NM. You have been given the link numerous times. Click it.


edit on 8-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

O

"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. "











Sorry, but whoever taught you about mach tuck missed the transonic boat. The C-141 horizontal stabilizer is built with negative incidence. It has to since the center of gravity (cg) is forward of the center of lift. That is an imminently unstable configuration leading to big black smoking holes in the ground if not corrected. Several pages ago, I used the 'fat girls on the playground' analogy and caught hell for it for perceived misogyny. OK, so think seesaw with Oprah on one side and Cher on the other. That will only balance if you put Oprah right near the fulcrum and Cher way out on the end. Oprah is the CG and Cher, appropriately, is the tail. The problem is that as airspeed (EAS) increases, the center of lift moves aft. The fulcrum of the seesaw is moving toward Cher. Her moment arm (distance from CL times downforce) decreases. She keeps inching farther out (more down elevator and/or nose down trim) until she runs out of seesaw on her side. Cher falls off (tailplane stall) and Oprah crashes down. That is mach tuck. The tail (stab and elevator) can't generate enough downforce to offset the moving center of lift. With the Starlifter it was exacerbated when the Air Force decided to shuttle fuel around to maintain an aft cg to save fuel. Nose down trim was used to offset the aft cg. Whenever you move air, either by lift from the wings or downforce from the tail. you create induced drag. Drag costs fuel. If you move more weight toward the tail, it doesn't need to generate as much downforce, hence less drag. If I remember correctly, in that configuration, you were limited to a cargo load center of balance of between station 850 and station 960. With respect to the Egyptair crash, there were two distinct debris fields. That is classic proof of an inflight breakup.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

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. "


Sorry, but whoever taught you about mach tuck missed the transonic boat.


Yes, I tried to explain all this to Xtrozero, but he claimed I get all my information from google and that the sources were wrong.

When I asked him to go edit the sources, he claims he "misspoke".

When I asked him if he knew what happens to CL as airspeed increases, his reply - "Nope, not a clue..."





edit on 8-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Fixed tags - typo - preview not working



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Posted by Xtrozero



Yes, I tried to explain all this to Xtrozero, but he claimed I get all my information from google and that the sources were wrong.

When I asked him to go edit the sources, he claims he "misspoke".

When I asked him if he knew what happens to CL as airspeed increases, his reply - "Nope, not a clue..."






I've flown with some co-pilots who I believe did get all their info from Google. One problem, I believe, is that most people really don't understand the concept of camber in an airfoil. As the air passes over a wing, it doesn't take the shortest route. It curves and as it does, it accelerates. While the nose, and the airspeed indicater pitot, may be doing .92 mach, at a certain point on top of the wing, the effective speed may be supersonic, with all the attendant issues, like compressibility and loss of laminar flow. And I've seen no discussion of Reynolds numbers here. An excellent discussion of section lift coefficient and pitching moment at different mach numbers for the NACA 66-210 airfoil is at www.aoe.vt.edu... That's the wing on the North American B-45, the Air Force's first jet bomber. Also on the Firebee missile.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



im right about the aerodynamics, you know this and again have chosen to ignore the statement, the website you given wasn't the 911 pilots for truth (speculative) website, the other site isnt working still, the VG diagram you have isn't correct, and the speeds that are on it are MAX SAFE Speeds, not speeds where you aeroplane will be destroyed if you exceed by 1 knot.

And as i stated 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, as i said like rocking horse crap, if you done this at your own free will with a liner, you will get your licence taken away, and this is not something that we as a whole would do just to prove a point to you, why don't you do this, sorry i forgot, your boyfriend only has a 172.

you are the one that brought up Mach tuck and you have been given further information about this than what you could have googled and you are still complaining about it, give it a rest, this has happened, the aircraft hit the tower, the towers came down and this tragedy has happened,

Stop with the infernal " the OS did it, i can prove it" only with flawed data, mistaken physics and poor technical understanding, if you come to an argument you dont know enough about or cant find it on google you refer to other sites to prove your flawed argument, i will let you in on a wee secret, these sites are flawed also.

Wee Mad



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


STOP DEFLECTING, Your name not on the pilots list then ??,is you name under the artists for 911 truth, come on, how many names on this site have been copied and pasted from the net without the persons actual authorisation, same with the Architects, there are only a few actual architects, there are a lot of lay people in there. this is becoming silly now.

Wee Mad



edit on 8/9/2010 by weemadmental because: Add further text




edit on 8/9/2010 by weemadmental because: removal of the second line



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

.99M at 22,000 feet is 425 KEAS. This calculation takes into consideration Compressibility.



Yes I understand KEAS and can figure it for any alt and understand where the 425 KEAS comes from, but my question is what does the peak speed in the report actually use? Is it based on not exceeding .99M or airspeed and .99M at 22,000 feet or KEAS at sea level pressures? You are suggesting that everything is based on 420 EAS and anything exceeding that will fail.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd


With respect to the Egyptair crash, there were two distinct debris fields. That is classic proof of an inflight breakup.


The two distinct debris fields were only 1200 ft apart. This would indicate a low altitude break up. The fact that skin from the horizontal stabilizer and the engine were found side by side would indicate a very low altitude break up. A structural failure at 16000 ft would be more like 2 mile debris field with the lighter debris located down wind of the heavier parts not with them. To suggest that an engine could fall and and the horizontal stab skin could flutter down from 16000 ft and land side by side is kind of far fetched.


-



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The FDR read out sez about 460 knots for about seven seconds at an altitude between 17000 and 16000 ft.


Page 28 NTSB EA 990



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The above is not a "mis-speak". It was flat out wrong.

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

I told you it wasn't "related to T-tails only". You balked.


Once again my point was that Boeing airplanes do not have this same limiting effect that we saw with the C-141. I did agree that all planes experience mach tuck after my statement...not sure why you want to continue on this but have fun. I think you have reach your end point and now you can only attack posters.




You initially claimed "Vmo+150 is 'easy' if the pilot maintains a relatively straight path".


This is a point you once again continually push. I did say it was easy to firewall the engine on a suicide run in not caring what the end speed was or how it would all pan out since the goal was to die. Any "Vmo+150" usage has only been from you.

My point in all this again, is that a pilot can line up and firewall the engine to a very bad ending as we saw. What that speed was I care little since as I said before the other plane is reported to hit at 430 knots and we saw the same effects. I also suggest Boeing has not come out and officially said the official report is impossible. You can play with my words all day and it doesn’t matter for it doesn’t prove or disprove a thing.




In other words Xtrozero, an airplane cannot fly at any speed it wants over Vmo as long as it does not change direction or pull G's, as you contend.


I agree and even stated I did not say any speed, but I did say what speed that is, who knows...ask Boeing today to define it for us will you?



edit on 8-9-2010 by Xtrozero because: grammer



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
@ Wee Mad -


Originally posted by weemadmental
STOP DEFLECTING, Your name not on the pilots list then ??


Where is the list of verified real pilot(s) who agree with you?

Let us know when you get some. You haven't been able to provide one for over 39 pages.

@Xtrozero -


Originally posted by Xtrozero
Yes I understand KEAS and can figure it for any alt and understand where the 425 KEAS comes from, but my question is what does the peak speed in the report actually use? Is it based on not exceeding .99M or airspeed and .99M at 22,000 feet or KEAS at sea level pressures?


.99M was reported as the Peak speed reached. Mach is based on speed of sound at a certain temp. Mach can be converted into a True airspeed, and from there calculate an EAS.

Mach Number = TAS/CS

This is basic stuff Xtrozero and is explained thoroughly in the presentation "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" by Aeronautical Engineers. Why have you failed to view it after being given the link time and time again?


Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The above is not a "mis-speak". It was flat out wrong.

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

I told you it wasn't "related to T-tails only". You balked.


Once again my point was that Boeing airplanes do not have this same limiting effect that we saw with the C-141. I did agree that all planes experience mach tuck after my statement...not sure why you want to continue on this but have fun. I think you have reach your end point and now you can only attack posters.


You may want to read what 4sicphd had to say about your statements regarding Mach tuck -

Here's a hint -

"Sorry, but whoever taught you about mach tuck missed the transonic boat. "

Click here to read more. Read it twice.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

@waypastevne -


Originally posted by waypastvne

The FDR read out sez[sic] about 460 knots for about seven seconds at an altitude between 17000 and 16000 ft.


Page 28 NTSB EA 990


460 knots @ 16,000 feet = 359 KEAS.

Feel free to check the calculation yourself -

www.luizmonteiro.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There will be no further sniping, insulting or baiting of each other period end of story. If you can not debate the topic without attacking other members then I strongly suggest you walk away until you can.

THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER WARNINGS



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

.99M was reported as the Peak speed reached. Mach is based on speed of sound at a certain temp. Mach can be converted into a True airspeed, and from there calculate an EAS.


Yes, but why didn't they say peak speed was 425 EAS. My question is whether they even look at EAS as part of the peak speed. This could mean they flew at a lower mach and a lower IAS at a lower alt, but achieve a higher EAS at that lower alt. Also did it breakup due to speed or is that your conclusion.

I guess the point is why post 530 IAS in the official report if it is impossable to do, and if it is impossable to do why doesn't Boeing come out and say so, and why does the pilotsfor911truth have only 75 to 100 experienced pilots on their roster, and why does it matter if a tower fell with one plane hitting at 430 IAS.



460 knots @ 16,000 feet = 359 KEAS.


So the plane failed at 359 EAS?


edit on 8-9-2010 by Xtrozero because: grammer



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Yes, but why didn't they say peak speed was 425 EAS. My question is whether they even look at EAS as part of the peak speed.


Why would they?

It appears you still don't know the definition of EAS.


I guess the point is why post 530 IAS in the official report if it is impossable[sic] to do, and if it is impossable[sic]


They didn't post "530 IAS" in the "official report". Why would they when the analysis was done by radar?

Please read it. You've been given numerous links.


to do why doesn't Boeing come out and say so,


Actually, Boeing was called. There is a recording floating around somewhere. A representative said it was impossible and that the speed analysis done by the NTSB is wrong.

Again, if you feel radar is inaccurate and can have such large margins for error, I suggest you think about that the next time you're in line for the approach IMC.






460 knots @ 16,000 feet = 359 KEAS.


So the plane failed at 359 EAS?


If you wish to claim EA990 started to break up at 16K, sure. You do realize 359 knots is still 80 knots over Maneuvering speed and that aircraft have suffered in flight structural failure below Vmo, do you not?

This is what happens when you pull G's over maneuvering speeds.

Do you know the definition of Va/Vra and the purpose for such limits?

The NTSB report says EA990 reached a peak speed of .99M. This calculates to 425 KEAS. Pilots For 9/11 Truth analyze the peak speed in their presentation and compare it to the reported speeds on 9/11. They also interview Aeronautical Engineers and several Captains from United and American Airlines who have actual command time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. Inclusive in this list is a NASA Engineer who designed high performance flight control systems.

They all think the speeds are impossible to improbable and is the "Elephant In the Room".

You still haven't even viewed the data.




top topics



 
141
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join