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: 57
141
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Exponent,

If it appears I am short with you, it is because all your questions have been answered and you refuse to inform yourself and instead stumble through the information with conviction and arrogance yourself.

I don't refuse to inform myself, I've already read 20 pages of this thread since you requested that I do so, I've checked up on what I can and asked questions for what I don't understand. You've chastised me for this and accused me of being blind to information.

I'll certainly take into account the points you list, but it will take some time to go through everything. While I do that, can you come up with any good reason for the large gradient during a small window of altitudes in the plot I made, or did I plot that wrong too?

I have found that the FAA has birdstrike regulations up to about 3km, I'm wondering if Vd here is the maximum speed a 767 can survive a birdstrike. Perhaps other countries require birdstrike up to 6km? This would be consistent with the information I have found about typical bird altitudes.

You can't expect me to get up to speed on a 55 page thread, nearly an hour of video and frankly an entire field of research in one day. Cut me some slack.



Below 10,000 feet aircraft are limited by FAA to 250 kts, does that play into your chart? With the whole structure failure part Tiff and friends have a hard time charting or even grasping the concept of fire walling the engines without the care of any kind of failure since they were going to crash the aircraft at whatever max speed they could reach.




posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
"Tiffany" refuses to "believe" anything (as if believing something is automatically a logical fallacy! Some people shouldn't be allowed on the internets) because the implications of her notions are so self-evidently ludicrous.

If you subscribe to what she says and think it's compelling, then you are forced to one of two conclusions.

- the planes were reinforced for some reason

- there were no planes.

Tiffany refuses to endorse either of these because they're obviously nonsense. Instead she concentrates on saying that something she calls the "OS" is wrong. But if it's wrong, if the planes were not the ones we think they were, then one of the above conclusions must be right.

Which is it Tiff?



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   
To assume that anyone who disputes the claim that there were no planes involved is blindly going along with the goverment story is very arrogant and insulting. Please stop doing this.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If you subscribe to what she says and think it's compelling, then you are forced to one of two conclusions.

- the planes were reinforced for some reason

- there were no planes.


Since they claim that there were planes then they suggest the planes were highly modified to exceed their brick wall limitations. The problem with this is they have the luxury to see this event after it has happened, and so they are looking at one single line of events. With this they base their theories on this one line of events, and it fits so well it sucks in others that think they must be right with such a glove fit theory.

And so here lies the fallacy. Past events are seen in a single line while future events have unlimited variables. For their theory to work those who caused 911 would need to have known how the future played out to plan for it as they suggest. This doesn’t even take into account the huge amount of complexity that is created with each and every new aspect added.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Thank you for confirming that you have nothing.

Evidence to support your argument:

Homemade charts, opinion, conjecture.


You can add "speculation" to the list. Tiffany has repeatedly stated that they do not have Boeing's flight test data and wind tunnel test data, so she has to speculate as to the, if any, ultimate speeds included in that data.

In other words, the only options she has is to either make it up or ignore it - both of which do not bode well for a legitimate case.

Again, I would like to ask "Tiffany" if she would like to take her home-made VG diagram and present it in a court of law and for the record and under oath, to defend her claim that these were not production 767s and were not flown by the hijackers on 9/11.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Each time you guys claim that this chart is "home-made" -




You further diminish any credibility you have left when readers click this link and find that it has been provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

Blindly supporting the OS rings true each time you guys make such blatantly absurd claims which anyone can readily prove false.

Again trebor - see that Vd on the right side of the above diagram?

What is Vd for the 767?

Click here to find out.

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

What does it say outside the Vd line on the above diagram provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics? That's right trebor, it says "STRUCTURAL FAILURE". Very good!

After FIFTY-SEVEN pages the score remains -

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, Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
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


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...

Those who blindly support the OS have been failing for 57 pages.
edit on 22-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Added Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics under data evidence



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



You further diminish any credibility you have left when readers click this link and find that it has been provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.


And not Boeing as you repeatedly state. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Case closed.




posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And not Boeing...



Read this slowly hooper as it appears you missed it the first 20 times in this thread.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

What is Vd for the 767?

Click here to find out.

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet


hooper,

Are you saying Vd as defined by Boeing is different than the Vd defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics?

I'm sure you are. And as usual, you are wrong.
edit on 23-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Don't care. Don't care about VMO, Vd or anything else.

Show the Boeing data that says the plane errupts into tiny little piece when those limits are exceeded.

You haven't and you can't. How many times have you been asked 20? 30? 40?

Prove, with independent data from a responsible and reputable sources, exactly what happens to the aircraft when any one of those parameters are exceeded. Exactly, not generalizations about "structural failure". Exactly what damage occurs that would have prevented that plane from hitting that building.

Otherwise, it stands that the plane, under control of the hijackers hit the building.

Its nine years now, going on ten. You are going nowhere with this stuff.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You do realize that those are not exact numbers, but rather estimations I assume? There is no exact failure specs for any given aircraft, nor is there any exact damage that is guaranteed to happen from exceeding any of the aircrafts design specified maximums. Aircraft frequently exceed their design specs with little, or even no damage from doing so. Those design specs state only the maximum safe guidelines, they are not absolutes. Just as an example, the sound barrier was unofficially broken twice prior to Yeagers flight, using a XP-86 Sabre, even though it was well outside its design specs to do so. Design specs have a safety factor built into them, and even then, due to differences in material and construction quality between aircraft, there can be no exact failure number.

Maybe as the truth movement folks like to act as though an aircraft cannot exceed its specs, attain controllable high speed at low altitude, or handle high G forces without breaking up, you all can explain this:

1985, February 19:
A B-747 SP, flown by a China Airlines Capt., suffered an engine failure while cruising at 41,000 ft. The Capt. left it on autopilot too long. The autopilot tried to maintain that altitude, which was ultimately impossible at that weight, with only 3 engines functioning. As it approached the stall, because the speed kept decelerating, the Capt. finally disconnected the auto pilot. He was not prepared, because he had failed to trim in rudder to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust condition; the autopilot was maintaining wings level by the use of aileron and spoilers only.

When he hit that disconnect switch, the plane rolled rapidly and entered a dive. Although the plane exceeded the speed of sound, tearing parts off and causing major structural damage, the Capt. was able to make a recovery at a few thousand feet over the Pacific Ocean, after he broke out of the clouds and could see his attitude via outside visual reference. There were, incredibly, only two serious injuries to the 274 passengers and crew.


LINKY LINK

So here we have a 747 diving to the point that it exceeded the speed of sound, and recovering at a few thousand feet above sea level, all without suffering complete structural failure. Explanation?

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 25-10-2010 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I fear that the so-called "PilotsFor9/11Truth" crowd attempt to use that very incident/accident to disingenuously claim that there can be "no control" at those excessive airspeeds. Look through the "standard" responses that toe the P4T "company" propaganda line, and you will see it being cited.

Problem is (for the P4T crowd) the circumstances of that intial upset event have nothing to do with their "argument". The airplane STALLED, at cruise altitude (41,000 feet) due to the crew's inattention after an engine flame-out. The result, because they remained on autopilot (which is fine) BUT, in altitude hold...so the airspeed gradually bled off, until they stalled. The proper procedure, when an engine fails, is to slow to your "drift-down" airspeed while holding altitude, and when you reach that (if you can't re-start, by then, you declare emergency) and you start descending in IAS HOLD mode...still on the A/P, but now you won't stall...the STALL is why they "lost control"!!!

P4T twists that backwards (as they do with MOST of their bogus "claims").
edit on 23 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Whaaa?!?
If he could not control the aircraft at those speeds at low altitude he would not have been able to break the roll, or out of the dive, and would have ended up in the water…

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Again, I would like to ask "Tiffany" if she would like to take her home-made VG diagram and present it in a court of law and for the record and under oath, to defend her claim that these were not production 767s and were not flown by the hijackers on 9/11.


She doesn't seem to be able to answer the above question, so we'll assume it is no.

And I wouldn't blame her, given PfTs last foray into the legal system. Probably best to sit on an internet discussion board and post home-made diagrams instead of getting into that legal thing again.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Throughout all these pages we really have not seen the reason as to why they need to dispute the numbers in the first place. The first aircraft estimated at 420ish kts hit and took down a tower seems to be undisputed by them, but the second one seems to be their Holy Grail of some kind.
Much of their argument was first based on some silly idea that aircraft can not in any way shape or form reach 500 kts at such a low altitude due to the laws of physics and this has slowly adjusted to only modified/other type airplane/another flight crew hit the second tower at those speeds, and one needs to ask how could the planners of 911 anticipate the need for the second aircraft to be faked with one that could exceed their brick wall limitations (as they see these limitations to be).

So here we sit with an argument that goes on and on without their reasoning as to how it all plays out in their theory as to why it was done the way they assume it happened, so I have some questions to expand this out a little.

1. Did the first plane have the kinetic energy and heat from its fuel to bring down the first tower?

2. If not and this leads into controlled dets, how would the people controlling the dets have known where the planes would actually hit? Or did they wire up 50 floors with each floor capable of independent ignition to align the first det just below where the extreme variable of where the planes would actually hit.?

3. Why would an extra 100 kts make any difference one way or the other for the second plane?



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


You won't get answers to this because P4T are not in the business of following through with the implications of their theories. Because then they look completely ridiculous. They are in fact in the business of selling tat to the gullible.

And Tiffany, that's not the diagram we mean. Your home made one is the useless thing that you knocked up yourself. I know you know what I'm talking about, because you proudly posted it about a billion times, along with links to your baseball cap shop.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5


1985, February 19:
A B-747 SP, flown by a China Airlines Capt., suffered an engine failure while cruising at 41,000 ft. The Capt. left it on autopilot too long. The autopilot tried to maintain that altitude, which was ultimately impossible at that weight, with only 3 engines functioning. As it approached the stall, because the speed kept decelerating, the Capt. finally disconnected the auto pilot. He was not prepared, because he had failed to trim in rudder to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust condition; the autopilot was maintaining wings level by the use of aileron and spoilers only.

When he hit that disconnect switch, the plane rolled rapidly and entered a dive. Although the plane exceeded the speed of sound, tearing parts off and causing major structural damage, the Capt. was able to make a recovery at a few thousand feet over the Pacific Ocean, after he broke out of the clouds and could see his attitude via outside visual reference. There were, incredibly, only two serious injuries to the 274 passengers and crew.




I fixed your bold above. Read it again.

...tearing parts off and causing major structural damage.

The 747SP above exceeded it's limits by roughly 30 knots in the above event which caused "tearing parts off and causing major structural damage/"

Let us know when you find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's limits by 150 knots, held together, and was stable/controllable. So far, the obfuscation brigade who blindly support the govt story have been failing for over 57 pages.

@hooper


Otherwise, it stands that the plane, under control of the hijackers hit the building.


Yes we know hooper, you still believe in Santa Claus because it hasn't been proven false and due to the fact NORAD tracks him each year. We get it.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You must have missed the point that the pilot was able to get it safely to an airport and land. At that point, who cares if the plane could still fly? The hijackers on 9/11 sure in the hell didnt care if the planes would be flyable after they were done.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


China Airlines 006 experienced as much as FIVE Gs....let me repeat FIVE Gs during the "graveyard spiral" (for, after all, once they became disoriented while they descended through the cloud deck below them, they apparently would NOT trust their ADIs, and seemed to react like amateurs, when faced with increasing airspeeds, and no natural horizon reference...UNTIL breaking out below the clouds, and fortunately it was daylight (early morning) so they could recover at that point.

FIVE Gs (positive) while SIMULTANEOUSLY exceeding Vmo. Plug THAT into the "P4T" V-g diagram!!!

Because, as you (might, by now) well know, the V-g diagram's "maximum" speed is NOT the "airplane will fall out of the sky at anything above this" speed.

A COMBINATION of the very high and excessive airspeeds, AND the excessive G forces....SIMULTANEOUSLY begin to impinge on structural integrity, more and more and more. BUT, it is NOT a freakin' "sudden failure" (as in that silly "P4T" video, with the animated airplane breaking up...gawd, is that stupid!! "P4T" ought to be embarrassed....and, being such a stalwart advocate of theirs, surprised you haven't yet clued in to that fact).

United 175 did not experience excessive G forces of that magnitude. Leveling out of a shallow descent of the sort seen in the historical data is NOT a "violent" or high g-force maneuver. I keep repeating, at the rates of descent estimated (based on data) it is something that OTHER airliners do each and every day, with no one noticing anything especially "high", about the forces experienced during level-off.

That is why "P4T's" latest nonsense "propaganda" fails, fails, fails...as do all their previous attempts to dispute reality as observed, and attempt to rewrite history...in many ways the "P4T" claims are JUST as frivolous, and have as little merit, as the Apollo "hoax believers",claiming the Moon landings were "faked". It's amazing how the tactics of the Moon "HB's" and the "P4T" crowd (of which you, my dear, are merely a victim --- because you FELL for their snake oil). Not YOUR fault, because that crowd at "P4T" inflate their assumed "experience" and manage to bamboozle and bedazzle with just enough "technical-sounding" jargon to fool some of the laypeople....sorry, but you've been had! I know of at least ONE other ATS member who, like you, used to repeat the "P4T" script, over and over....as it was fed to him. BUT, this member only had some Microsoft Flight SIm for experience, and eventually realized that HE had been fooled...so, there's hope for you, once you see through the effects of this cult of ignorance and denial.

Oh, and for you, and everyone, here's the full NTSB report for China 006. It WILL also be "technical" to some people...who may struggle with it, but it is factual, and not full of hyperbole and misleading innuendo, as usually comes from the "P4T" camp:

www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de...

A good read through that is suggested, as a learning experience. Sorry if it destroys the faith you seem to have in your "P4T" idols....(well, really let's face it....that group is actually only about ONE guy, when you get right down to it....and his ego seems to be affecting his better judgement, and past training. Or, maybe it's the sales receipts from DVDs and T-shirts and stuff???) :shk:





edit on 23 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You must have missed the point that the pilot was able to get it safely to an airport and land. At that point, who cares if the plane could still fly? The hijackers on 9/11 sure in the hell didnt care if the planes would be flyable after they were done.


Are you saying the 9/11 "hijackers" had the same skill level and time in type as that of a Capt of a 747SP?

If so, you would be wrong.

Even so, the Capt of the 747SP needed 30,000+ feet to recover.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
A COMBINATION of the very high and excessive airspeeds, AND the excessive G forces....SIMULTANEOUSLY begin to impinge on structural integrity, more and more and more.


Exactly correct weedwhacker.

Again -

Please let us know when you find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's limits by 150 knots, held together, and remained stable/controllable without any loss of altitude. Also 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...

Those who blindly support the OS have been failing for over 57 pages.
edit on 23-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de...



Thanks for providing that link weedwhacker.

Can you please show us in the above report where it says the aircraft exceeded the speed of sound?

I skimmed through it and couldn't find one. But I did find these.




- The captain, first officer, and flight engineer said that they did not hear the overspeed aural warning and that the stall warning stickshaker did not activate at any time during the descent.

- As the airplane emerged from the clouds at about 11,000 feet it was, according to the captain, accelerating through 180 KIAS

- The first sustained data loss occurred at 1015:23 as the airplane was descending through 30,132 feet at 296 KIAS


- . At 1017:13, when the Group 1 synchros began displaying correct data, the airplane was at 9,577 feet and climbing and the airspeed was 221 KIAS

- During that 8-second period, the airplane descended from 14,541 feet to 13,950 feet and the airspeed increased from 87 KIAS to 110 KIAS

- the Safety Board believes that it was highly unlikely that the airplane ever achieved the necessary 250 KIAS to permit a successful airstart on engines Nos. 1, 2, and 3...




Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join