9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by weemadmental


I wondered that, as well.

Only four-engineed high-winged T-tailed RJ I've ever heard of WAS the BAe-146. I don't keep up with all the various little jets that (IMO, infest the business) nowadays. (We call them "Barbie Jets"....I think she --- the Mattel doll --- had one at one point, in their toy promotions...).

So, looked it up,,,you're BOTH correct. Companies merge, names change, etc. (For instance, the MD-80? Now, it's a "Boeing"). Oh, well.....

.... back to the BAe-146:

The type name "Avro RJ" superceded "BAe 146" in 1993, in a new joint venture. The Avro RJ comes in three sizes: for 70, 85, and 100 passengers. All three sizes have the same cockpit, engines, and operations. Turbofan engines from Honeywell Inc., housed in newly designed nacelles, replaced the original Lycoming engines. Production of this aircraft has now ended.

www.flightlevel350.com...

The missing planes flight numbers were not officially released until late in the morning EST.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

So, looked it up,,,you're BOTH correct. Companies merge, names change, etc. (For instance, the MD-80? Now, it's a "Boeing").

Oh, well.....

.... back to the BAe-146:

The type name "Avro RJ" superceded "BAe 146" in 1993, in a new joint venture. The Avro RJ comes in three sizes: for 70, 85, and 100 passengers. All three sizes have the same cockpit, engines, and operations. Turbofan engines from Honeywell Inc., housed in newly designed nacelles, replaced the original Lycoming engines. Production of this aircraft has now ended.

www.flightlevel350.com...

Attention to detail, my good friend - I strive to meet that standard daily. Not knowing exactly what the airline was as well as not recognizing the aircraft, I did indeed go out on a hunt. The 4 engines was the first clue, as well as the T-tail. I first thought Soviet/Russian, possibly an Antonov or Ilyushin, but couldn't find any with that T-tail and the 4 engines. Next came a search of "4 engined aircraft + British Airways" and finally found the aircraft. The first link I found referenced an Avro RJ, but I do see it also designated currently as the BAe 146.

Thank you, weemadmental....you are correct - as was I with an older designation.

reply to post by trebor451


no worries, ive always known them as the 146 as they used to fly from my local airport, they use dornier's now, its properly Scandinavian / Norwegian origin, there are number of operators from them, tried to make out the operator, not a lot to go on though.


Wee Mad

From a Boeing article on their 757-8,, aircraft number RC521, the second 747-8 Freighter, as it lifted more than 1 million pounds into the air:

"In flight test, we test the airplane's capabilities above and beyond the normal operating conditions," says Andy Hammer, flight test manager for the 747-8. "This way, we can clearly demonstrate to the customers, the regulatory agencies, and the passengers that the aircraft is capable of performing at these levels."

Someone needs to tell poor Andy Hammer that he shouldn't be testing "the aircraft's capabilities above and beyond the normal operating conditions". He *must* be made to understand that an aircraft breaks as soon as it reaches its design limit. Period.

And that a single knot over Vmo, it breaks apart.

Hammer expounded on his comment above:

"So we go above the limits that are established for the aircraft - from a weight perspective, from a speed perspective so that we can clearly demonstrate...the aircraft is capable of performing at these levels.

(ellipse mine. Simply cut out a repeat of "the customers, the regulatory agencies and passengers".)

Wait. Help. Sound the alarm. An aircraft can go *faster* than its speed limits? An aircraft will break if it exceeds its design limits. period. It cannot fly faster than the little chart says it can. if it does, it breaks. Period.

Someone call "Tiffany" and Captain Bob Balsamo. Quick. We can't have aircraft flight test managers thinking their aircraft can be flown above established speed limits. 0r outside design limits.

Horrors.

Can we finally agree that Pilots for 9/11 truth is full of bovine excrement?

Anyone miss me?

Just dropping in to check the score. I see it still remains the same after FORTY-NINE pages -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

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 ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0


I'll add yet another question which is continually evaded by those who blindly support anything the govt tells them -

When will Trebor (spell it backwards and you will understand the obsession of this person, but then again, you can just tell from his posts with whom he is obsessed), weedwhacker, and/or their blind supporters, debate Robert Balsamo and the Pilots For 9/11 Truth on air?

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-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - 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..."

Originally posted by trebor451

"So we go above the limits that are established for the aircraft - from a weight perspective, from a speed perspective so that we can clearly demonstrate...the aircraft is capable of performing at these levels.

(ellipse mine. Simply cut out a repeat of "the customers, the regulatory agencies and passengers".)

Now go learn what happens to the V-G diagram as weight increases -

www.apstraining.com...

And then learn the modifications involved in the 747-8 compared to earlier generations of the 747.

en.wikipedia.org...

Trebor, apparently you didn't even read your source thoroughly -

Boeing engineers stretched the fuselage of the iconic 747 to create the new 747-8 Freighter. The bigger airplane boasts a designed maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 975,000 pounds (442,253 kg), compared to the 875,000 pound (396,900 kg) MTOW of its predecessor, the 747-400 Freighter.

[snip]

When it was all packed and loaded, the airplane weighed about 1,005,000 pounds (455,860 kg).

Wow, they REALLY pushed the MTOW envelope by such a wide margin trebor. A whole THREE percent! Wow!. Mind blowing!



Wanna compare Apples to apples?

According to your above "margin",

360 +3% = 370.8 knots.

I agree, a 767 can fly at 370.8 knots.

Let us know when the 747-8 flies at almost 1.5M pounds. Then you'll be a bit closer to comparing apples.

Try again trebor.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Just for giggles someday you'll have to tell us exactly what your argument is, maybe take a little time and describe the "elephant", huh? It would be interesting to see if you can put your argument into sentence form, just for the record because as of now, you have yet to score a point because you have obviously chosen to stay out of the argument. You know, something straight like "I don't think the plane hit the world trade center because...."

"Til then - TiffanyInLa is a no show. Game forfiet.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Just for giggles someday you'll have to tell us exactly what your argument is, maybe take a little time and describe the "elephant", huh? It would be interesting to see if you can put your argument into sentence form, just for the record because as of now, you have yet to score a point because you have obviously chosen to stay out of the argument. You know, something straight like "I don't think the plane hit the world trade center because...."

"Til then - TiffanyInLa is a no show. Game forfiet.

This link was given to you numerous times hooper, why haven't you clicked?

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The " Elephant In The Room "

Credentials and qualifications of the above NASA Flight Director -

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

More here at nasa.gov

Deets has been associated with at Dryden during his NASA career are the F-8 Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft, the X-29 Forward Swept Wing technology demonstrator aircraft, the F-16 Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI) aircraft and the Highly Maneuverable Aircraft Technology (HiMAT) aircraft.

Source - www.nasa.gov...


hooper, how much experience do you have with high performance flight control systems and aircraft limitations?

If your posts throughout this thread are any indication, your answer is - zero, zilch, nada. A Big fat goose egg.

So hooper, tell us, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150 as does weedwhacker, Xtrozero and trebor?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

hooper, how much experience do you have with high performance flight control systems and aircraft limitations?

If your posts throughout this thread are any indication, your answer is - zero, zilch, nada. A Big fat goose egg.

So hooper, tell us, do you still think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150 as does weedwhacker, Xtrozero and trebor?

Still top secret on the old argument, huh? Tell me, how much experience do you have with simple communication? You know, good old fashion freshman year essay writing? Wherein you make an opening statement, present your thesis and then defend it. Without spam links to your favorite website. Well, obviously you have little to none. You should try a couple of basic college writing courses, could really come in handy some day. Oh well, here is another futile try:

In your own words - what isyour argument?

Originally posted by hooper
[snip off topic insults]

In your own words - what isyour argument?

hooper, this has been posted on almost every page.

Here, let me bold and enlarge for you...

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Evidence for my argument - (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -
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...)

Can you see it now?


Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA




More of the same gibberish?? AND, misleading "visualizations" of the event?

...control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220...

Here it goes again....what you keep trying to pull here, is to imply that the airplane (United 175) was maintaining that 'final' airspeed for the entire time in the descent. It achieved that speed for a mere few seconds, at most.

We've all seen the NTSB video re-creations from American 77 and United 93, showwing how the airspeed only increased beyond Vmo at the very last moments. It is logical to infer a similar scenario with United 175.

As to "control"?? And the continued mention of that red herring about the Cessna??? :shk: Tell us again, "Tiff", just WHO were they talking about??? Wait, I'll help (and help any readers who haven't noticed, yet, just how much the "PilotsForTruth" distort the facts:

Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course."

[skip]

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license.

911research.wtc7.net...

I must point out that the source, there, whilst seemingly trying to be "unbiased" obviously needs to do more research, after reading their "assessment" of how "difficult" it is to merely fly in a ~320-degree descending turn, at normal angles of bank!!! (I could even teach YOU, "Tiff"....even IF you had never flown once in your life!!)

SO, "Tiff".....since YOU brought up the "Cessna at 65 knots" baloney, care to retract it? Or, are you going to continue to allege that Hani Hanjour was flying United 175?

Oh, and for anyone who cares....the ENTIRE skill sets needed to be a pilot who is deemed "acceptable" and trustworthy to rent an airplane, or demonstrate the full set of knowledge and abilities in other areas, include a LOT more than simply steering an airplane, already in flight, on a suicide mission. Anyone could do it, with very little experience needed.

Now, on to the next misrepresentation:

--and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive...

What??? What, exactly, do you think is needed to arrest a descent? How many G??

Hint....next time you fly commercially, pay attention when you're in the descent...even sitting in the back you can tell, right? Get this....when we descend (normally, engines at flight idle) and have a rate of, say....3,000 to even 4,000 fpm down....leveling out is NOT a "lot" of Gs. I mean, have YOU ever felt that? Do you even know what it would feel like? And how obvious it would be? (Not to mention, uncomfortable and upsetting for the passengers). Even as little as 2Gs would get attention (and probably complaint letters).

SO....the guy flying United 175 didn't have to "pull" many Gs at all....not in a gradual leveling out of the descent. WHICH you can see in the video clips. Do the math.

And finally....I laughed here, sorry. Couldn't help myself:

....while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank...

"cranking" into the bank? "Pilot speak" in some quarters, yes. BUT, carefully selected to give another false impression, eh?? Well, back to that airliner ride, and your personal experience...we "crank" the airplane into the turn quite often....well, "gently" of course, or else people would get upset, as before. (Sometimes, though...a bit of "user error" with the autopilot might cause a bit of an abrupt roll input...usually happens when intercepting the Localizer, when the A/P capture is armed. Depends on sensitivity, proximity to the Localizer antenna...I.E., distance out....airspeed and angle of intercept too).

Still, A/P won't exceed 30 degrees. We aren't supposed to either. BUT...."38" degrees?? SO WHAT?? You think that's going to result in "high" Gs?

At a 38 degreee angle of bank, (level unaccelerated) the G-load is a whopping 1.3. You can plot that on your pretty Vg Diagram, if you wish.

This link is overly complicated, has a lot more variables, so don't be too intimidated by it. Simply enter any airspeed (g forces are irrespective of speed, directly related to angle) and see the results:

www.csgnetwork.com...

And, from the videos I've watched, it sure looked like the guy rolled a teeny bit steeper at the very last moment, before impact.

Watching the video over and over, looks like any other footage of an airplane flying, and there are plenty of examples to choose from.

The little "Pilots" Club fails yet again. (Same as with the baloney about American 77's Flight Deck Door, from the FDR!! They never bothered to find out that the data for that parameter is OPTIONAL, and was not even installed!! Hilarious fail....are they STILL talking ----lying---- about that on the website?? Shameful deception.....)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Here it goes again....what you keep trying to pull here, is to imply that the airplane (United 175) was maintaining that 'final' airspeed for the entire time in the descent. It achieved that speed for a mere few seconds, at most.

Wrong -

[P4T] calculated the last minute of travel, the average is 500+ knots. Feel free to calculate the moment the aircraft exceeded it's Vmo of 360 knots. [The NTSB Radar] CSV file is attached at bottom of this post.

Source - Click

You may want to actually download the data from the NTSB weedwhacker as you have been continually wrong in virtually every one of your posts regarding the speeds reported and duration (not to mention basic fundamentals of flight and the fact you feel a V-G diagram cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known).

We've all seen the NTSB video re-creations from American 77 and United 93, showwing[sic] how the airspeed only increased beyond Vmo at the very last moments. It is logical to infer a similar scenario with United 175.

Based on your logic due to the fact you have a blind support of the govt story? I am not surprised you "infer instead of actually analyzing the data..

But reality is very much different than what you tend to "infer".

Download the data and look at it.

As to "control"?? And the continued mention of that red herring about the Cessna??? :shk: Tell us again, "Tiff", just WHO were they talking about??? Wait, I'll help (and help any readers who haven't noticed, yet, just how much the "PilotsForTruth" distort the facts:

Hani Hanjour, the person accused of flying Flight 77 into the Pentagon, was failing his courses at the Arizona flight school. According to an employee, "He didn't care about the fact that he couldn't get through the course."

[skip]

In the second week of August 2001, Hanjour had attempted to rent a small plane from an airport in Bowie, MD. Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner declined his request, after taking Hanjour on three test runs, noting he had trouble controlling and landing the Cessna 172. Though Hanjour had attended a flight school in Scottsdale, AZ, for four months in 1996 and 1997, he never completed the coursework for a single-engine aircraft license.

911research.wtc7.net...

Here's more -

"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source

He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Source - Click

Let us know when you check the data and actually have some evidence for your argument, then will get to the rest of your strawman arguments.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

hooper, this has been posted on almost every page.

Here, let me bold and enlarge for you...


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Evidence for my argument - (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -
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...)

OK, those are called sentence fragments. Not sentences. Maybe word strings.

Try to communicate whole and complete ideas in a sentence format. Because we all know how successful your present approach has been, what with the world beating a path to your door to learn more and more of your earth shattering "arguments".

reply to post by BobinTiffany'sBasement


It isn't quite 150 knots, but it is 100 knots past Vmo in a 737. No mention of control reversal or difficulty maintaining control, or structural failure.

Though the pilots had recovered the aircraft and landed normally, the aircraft had exceeded its maximum operating speed (VMO) by 100kt (185km/h) and lost 10,000ft (3,000m) of altitude during the event.

www.flightglobal.com...

Originally posted by hooper
Try to communicate whole and complete ideas in a sentence format. Because we all know how successful your present approach has been, what with the world beating a path to your door to learn more and more of your earth shattering "arguments".

I apologize you are having a hard time understanding the argument.

Let me see if I can clarify for you.

Reported speeds and control have been described as "impossible", "improbable", and "The Elephant In The Room" base on data, precedent and numerous verified experts.

Please let us know when you have some evidence for your argument that is it "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo-150, Va+220

Please also 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-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - 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..."

You have failed for more than 49 pages.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by BobinTiffany'sBasement

 

There is no need to post insults.

It isn't quite 150 knots, but it is 100 knots past Vmo in a 737. No mention of control reversal or difficulty maintaining control, or structural failure.

Though the pilots had recovered the aircraft and landed normally, the aircraft had exceeded its maximum operating speed (VMO) by 100kt (185km/h) and lost 10,000ft (3,000m) of altitude during the event.

www.flightglobal.com...

Read this slowly from your source -

"...and lost 10,000ft (3,000m) of altitude during the event."

Then read this part you conveniently left out (most likely due to your bias and blind support of anything your govt tells you)

The NTSB says the figures it has provided are subject to confirmation.

Then read the evidence for my argument.

Here it is again - (I'll bold the parts you apparently missed)

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant In The Room") -

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...)

Let us know when you find one aircraft which was positively identified to have exceeded its Vmo by 150 knots and remained controllable/stable within 1000 feet of sea level.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


The words you use in the argument are improbable and impossible, it cannot be impossible and improbable at the same time as this shows a difference and flaw in your argument, if its impossible it cannot be done, if its improbable then it can be done, make your mind up.

You get on at Weed and others with flight knowledge and experience for following the FINDINGS of the OS, and you are blindly following Capt Balsamic and his stories, so don't judge, Weed - Evidence, capt B - Theories / stories

You are picking at posts and sources again for your own means, you have been warned about this previously, just cause the aircraft flew at 100+ vmo, had lost 3000m at the same time doesn't make the scenario impossible, it just shows that the aircraft can fly 100+.VMO and they were able to recover it, if you have any flight experience you would be able to appreciate this

I have tired of this thread already, and thought it died, what a shame

Wee Mad

reply to post by Boone 870


Wow....now THAT is mighty interesting!!!

(How is it I hadn't yet heard about it??? Guess because it was across the pond.....)

I won't presume to speculate about what may have (cough, cough) caused the "uncommanded" pitch-over.....

...but.....non-rev, just the pilots (and both jumpseats)? Well, boys will sometimes be boys, eh?? (NOT sayin' anything, yet....)

Too bad there isn't more info in that article......any more comes out, would love to hear it.

Originally posted by weemadmental
The words you use in the argument are improbable and impossible, it cannot be impossible and improbable at the same time as this shows a difference and flaw in your argument, if its impossible it cannot be done, if its improbable then it can be done, make your mind up.

Wee Mad,

Weedwhacker, Xtrozero, trebor, et al, claim it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, while pulling out of a 10,000+ foot dive, rolling on G's, etc....

Ya'll claim to have experience in aviation, yet you never put your name to such a claim.

These people have.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Of course it is expected their conservative nature expects them to have varied opinions based on experience and data. But where they all agree (and when calculated statistically), they all agree the speeds reported need to be investigated. The "probability" when combined is less than .0001%.

This is known in statistics as impossible. Are you familiar with statistics? Do you know how to calculate as such? Need a link?

You on the other hand, claim "nothing to see here folks, move along, it's easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150".

Yet you provide zero evidence nor verified experts, for over FORTY NINE PAGES.

The examples that have been provided by those who blindly support the govt story, have actually been proven to work against their/your argument as none of you have been able to find one aircraft to exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots and remained stable/controllable.

Unfortunately for you, you validate my argument every time you reply.

Again, let us know when you have some evidence for your argument, or at the very least perhaps wish to put your name behind your claims? As did hundreds of other aviation professionals who disagree with you.