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: 58
141
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 06:48 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.




After reading the NTSB report on this accident and not being able to find a reference to "exceeding the speed of sound", I had to find out where the above claim is from. (I noticed you didn't provide a source link defcon5, isn't that against ATS T&C when quoting externally?).

Anyway, here is his source - www.airlinesafety.com...

It appears the same source thinks a 747SP is a turboprop.


The tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum instead of steel.






posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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.



Funny how you change the criteria every time an example is found.

Also amusing that you don't understand basic logic. According to your argument, an event cannot happen unless there is another exactly analogous event extant.


Also please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy"


I'm not sure anyone has claimed it would be easy. Still, keep sticking up the straw men and then pretending that you've won some kind of argument. And do let us know when you're ready to do something with this information other than, well... actually I'm not sure what it is you are doing with this apparently world-changing news. You seem to just be coming on here and linking to another website, then writing "OS = wrong, lol!" a lot.

And any move on what you actually think happened? Above you seem to admit to being a noplaner...



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I'm not sure anyone has claimed it would be easy.


Read slowly, notice the bold.


Originally posted by Xtrozero
I’m a pilot and I could have hit those towers without much difficulty in excess of 500 MPH. The hardest part of flying is landing, so once you are away from the ground it becomes rather easy.


Then again, the above person who claims to be a pilot also claims Mach Tuck is exclusive only to T-Tails.


There are more, but I don't feel like digging them out on my Sat night.


Let us know when you find some evidence for your argument Tricky, you have failed for FIFTY-EIGHT 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...



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I’m a pilot and I could have hit those towers without much difficulty in excess of 500 MPH. The hardest part of flying is landing, so once you are away from the ground it becomes rather easy.


And once again Tiff is running out of ideas and feels the postings of others somehow proves or disproves anything of what actually happened. I think for the last 50 pages she has just attacked posts without actually debating them in anyway. She attacks and then ignores any further posts.... fun stuff but it doesn't prove a thing...sorry

So the above posting of mine was actually towards another person and she jumped on it and still jumps on it even though a few posts later I said


I have already said that speed is really not a factor when flying in a somewhat straight line. In this case if they turned a few miles or so on a straight heading towards the towers, and then firewalled the throttles, after that point they would only need to make small changes in their approach as they accelerated well past their “barber pole” and I doubt they even cared what their speed was

So my “easy” post was based on lining up on a straight approach and then fire walling the engines and just from then on aiming to hit the towers at whatever max speed the airplane reached.



Then again, the above person who claims to be a pilot also claims Mach Tuck is exclusive only to T-Tails.


Yep you jumped on this a dozen of times or more even though within the next few posts I replied..


I'm talking the more extreme nature of the phenomena that would drastically limit max speeds and that is why we flew at .74 Mach and the C-5 cruised at .78 and our non T tail C-135 cruised at .89 with a top speed of more than 530 knots…so here is a C-135 (707) that can do it….


Which you ignored too, but it really doesn’t matter if you feel the need to attack me and others since it will not change reality to fit your pet fantasies... sorry I mean theories.

edit on 23-10-2010 by Xtrozero because: quotes



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So my “easy” post was based on lining up on a straight approach and then fire walling the engines and just from then on aiming to hit the towers at whatever max speed the airplane reached.



I'll let ATS member Jetstream explain this to you as it is clear he understands why manufacturers set airspeed limitations.

Read slowly.


Originally posted by JetStream
maybe I am not being clear enough for some to understand.

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.

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.

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... outside of its flight envelope.
Thats just a cost for no gain.


[snip]

An airplane is a beautifully balanced piece of equipment,within its design parameters. At the claimed speed what will the roll rate be?Don't know.I don't even know if the spoilers could stay attached at that speed.But a little if any deflection can have huge control issues.

[snip]

And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke.


Numerous other pilots who are verified and understand airspeed limitations also disagree with you Xtrozero. Click here to see them.

patriotsquestion911.com...

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..."
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


The score remains

Evidence for your argument (they were fake planes)

- a diagram you made up
- a handful of whack-job pilots selling baseball caps


Evidence for the traditional view being right

- several precedents, discussed at length, subsequently ignored by you
- the fact that there's no earthly reason why the planes would be fake
- no evidence whatsoever for your theory. Which isn't even a theory.


And you wonder why nobody cares. Why the world is supremely indifferent to P4T's silly notions. And why your credibility is at rock bottom.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And you wonder why nobody cares.


And yet here you are, day after day, night after night, thread after thread, arguing with people you think are "whack jobs".



Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


And you wonder why nobody cares. Why the world is supremely indifferent to P4T's silly notions. And why your credibility is at rock bottom.


you can always tell,when the debunkers argument is failing,they try to discredit the person,instead of debateing the argument..classic case right here



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I can't find MY post where I responded directly to memberJetstream and his "737-400 simulator" comparison. (Actually, most simulators can be "switched" to reflect any number of versions, of the said airplane...so, this "737-400" could, with a press of a few buttons on the Instructor's station, be a 737-300, or a -500. The cockpit layout/instrument panel configuration is the same. Of course, the -600, -700 and -800 are slightly different, and THEY need an entirely different Sim).

Now....I can't find the original post, but I remember I ASKED him/her, and received no answer, regarding the "nose down trim authority" he described. Forgetting, for the moment, it is a 737 he is trying to compare to a 767 (
), I asked whether he bothered to manually trim nose down, beyond the normal electric trim limits that are in place, on the Boeing 737 models. NO ANSWER!!

(I also wasn't sure IF he/she was talking about a REAL Level-D sim, or a desktop program....)

For those of you (and "Tiff") who aren't familiar with the B-737 stabilizer trim system, it can be controlled both electrically via the switches on the control wheels, or on the pedestal (and also, at "half-rate" by the autopilot) AND manually, via these two big black wheels, mounted on the center pedestal. These have a handle that stows away, and can be pulled out to "crank" when you need a lot of movement, in a hurry...instead of just "rolling" it by pushing/pulling along its rim. (It is a ALWAYS advisable to turn the Trim Cut-Out switches to "cut-out" before extending those handles, because any trim activation will get those wheels rotating pretty fast, and will whack you in the knee, when you're sitting in the pilot seats. This SAME system is just about exactly the same in the B-727, BTW).

Here's a B-727 center pedestal photo, for illustration. You can see the Captain's right leg. The center pedestal on the B-737 are virtually identical (they use many of the same parts), except, of course, the throttle levers are different...and, there are only two.



On the right trim wheel, you can see a white stripe. That is so any movement is easily detectable, visually. (In case of a "runaway trim" situation). Of course, the things are loud enough, you usually can't miss the noise, when they're activated electrically. There also is a yellow light (on the right) and you can see the Stab Trim cut-out switches on the right, too. (Two of them, one for each electric trim system. Checking their proper function is part of every preflight check, when "receiving" the airplane from a previous crew, or for first flight of the day).

Here's a close-up (it is actually a frame from a desktop flight sim, but it is accurate):



The range of stab trim is shown...with electrics, the stab will stop trimming at about 1-2 degrees nose down. SO, manually it can go all the way to the stops.

Anyway, we have a procedure on the B-737 when getting de-iced/anti-iced on the ground, to disengage the electric trim, and manually crank the stabilizer to the FULL nose-down position, beyond what is available by electrics. The raises the leading edge of the stab to its highest, and gives it a maximum angle for gravity to assist with runoff of any ice and excess glycol. It angles the stab another few degrees, in manual. Surely, THAT would assist in the high-speed "nose-up" tendency.

But, again....we are discussing a B-737 here. The -767 is another matter. Wing angles of incidence, and stab trim range and authority are different....I found the photo I posted earlier, on ATS, showing a B-777 horiz stab full range. Left image is nose-up position. (Hey, the 777 is more similar to a 767 than the 737 is!)



(If I recall, I might have used that image in THIS thread...but, it's big, and hard to search through....)

I see that the disinfo campaign is still going on!! :shk: I like to set the record straight, when I can, with REAL information, from a REAL perspective of ACTUAL flying experience.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by snapperski
 


snapper, each and every "claim" made by any of the "P4T" representatives, whether HERE on ATS, or on their vanity site (where ANY dissension is NOT tolerated!) has been shown to be a comedy of mistakes, and in many cases, outright lies (or, at the very least, misrepresentation and twisting of facts, very cleverly hidden from those not knowledgeable enough to detect their methods).

Eventually, from pure frustration stemming from the repeated untruths, it IS a valid point to make, regarding their veracity.

It is also important to note just how vanishingly SMALL their "membership? roster is, compared to the huge numbers of pilots around the world....QUALIFIED large jet airplane pilots, ALSO experienced on the airplanes in question (B-757/767) who do NOT fall for this side-show of a "group". A small minority of any group of people will usually fall for any crackpot idea, and that's what's going on, here.

I would venture a guess, too, to say that in the case of their few actual airline pilots, from United and American for instance....that their interviews filmed in the past, for the various videos, reflect an opinion that they MAY NOT have, now. I also see some incorrect assumptions made, in those videos, and their (the real pilots') responses to THOSE assumptions are mis-used, and misinterpreted, in order to "support" the "P4T" claims....



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I asked whether he bothered to manually trim nose down, beyond the normal electric trim limits that are in place, on the Boeing 737 models. NO ANSWER!!


Yes, and I'm sure al-shehhi was a$$es and elbows trimming full nose down, manually and electrically, with full nose down yoke at the stops, just so he could hit a target with a 25' margin for error out of a 10,000 foot dive cranking into a 38 deg bank and Vmo+150, with zero time in type and less experience than a pilot that couldn't hit a runway in a 172 at 65 knots.


Jetstream didn't come back to answer you because your theory is absurd weedwhacker.



I see that the disinfo campaign is still going on!! :shk:


Agreed.


REAL information, from a REAL perspective of ACTUAL flying experience.


Yes, click here for REAL information from verified pilots and aviation professionals. I can see why you refuse to put your name to your claims weedwhacker, unlike these people.

Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


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


Credentials of the above -

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


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












edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours


Thinks the best book on 9/11 is David Icke's.

I'm glad that a man who agrees with a guy who thinks that we're being controlled by giant shape-shifting lizards isn't still flying around.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours


Thinks the best book on 9/11 is David Icke's.

I'm glad that a man who agrees with a guy who thinks that we're being controlled by giant shape-shifting lizards isn't still flying around.


Source?

And yet, Capt Kolstad has 23,000 hours at American Airlines, time in type, actual time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, went to Top Gun, not once, but twice, and puts his name to his claims.

What is your experience and credentials in aviation Tricky? Can we verify it as we can for Capt Kolstad?

Character assassination is all you have because you cannot debate the facts.

Remember Tricky, "Nobody cares", and yet here you are slinging mud at people you think are "whack-jobs", on your Sunday. Too funny.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity, typo



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by snapperski


you can always tell,when the debunkers argument is failing,they try to discredit the person,instead of debateing the argument..classic case right here


You clearly haven't read the thread. Tiffany's arguments have been thoroughly discredited. That's why

- she's stopped posting her home-made diagram every five minutes
- she refuses to entertain the implications of her ideas
- she hasn't done anything with her information except link to a site that sells stuff
- she flatly ignores the mass of evidence that disagrees with her
- she has taken to simply pretending that she's somehow "won".


I find the last notion the most amusing. I mean, if her arguments were any good they would actually be, er, winning the argument in the public sphere. People would be sitting up and taking notice. Not just a bunch of semi-literates on a couple of tat-purveying websites.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I went to Top Gun three times. But then I did really like Kelly McGillis.

Look, I'll ignore the grand irony of your comment about posting on a Sunday. But really, you're saying that you've somehow won some kind of victory here? Where is it?

You can keep banging out the arguments from authority as well. They won't work. A handful of pilots - one of whom apparently believes in giant shape-shifting lizards - support a venture that increasingly looks like a way of selling stuff. Certainly this thread resembles nothing so much as a viral marketing campaign.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


And you wonder why nobody cares. Why the world is supremely indifferent to P4T's silly notions. And why your credibility is at rock bottom.


you can always tell,when the debunkers argument is failing,they try to discredit the person,instead of debateing the argument..classic case right here


Yeah.

You can also tell which arguments have the most merit.

They come out of the woodwork in waves and tag-team style.

Case in point - I'm sure Tricky can find many people to debate regarding David Icke, on this forum, but instead he is here, attempting character assassination on a guy who has experience that Tricky could only dream of.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I went to Top Gun three times. But then I did really like Kelly McGillis.

Look, I'll ignore the grand irony of your comment about posting on a Sunday. But really, you're saying that you've somehow won some kind of victory here? Where is it?

You can keep banging out the arguments from authority as well. They won't work. A handful of pilots - one of whom apparently believes in giant shape-shifting lizards - support a venture that increasingly looks like a way of selling stuff. Certainly this thread resembles nothing so much as a viral marketing campaign.


And you still have yet to provide a source.

Bottom line Tricky, you cannot debate the facts, so you attempt character assassination.

You claim "no one cares", but here you are arguing.

I am here because I do care. There is no irony except your obvious and clear hypocrisy.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I'm glad that a man who agrees with a guy who thinks that we're being controlled by giant shape-shifting lizards isn't still flying around.


By the way, he IS still flying around, not only that, but teaching others who may fly YOU around.

Looks like it's the train for you.




posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Yeah.

You can also tell which arguments have the most merit.

They come out of the woodwork in waves and tag-team style.

Case in point - I'm sure Tricky can find many people to debate regarding David Icke, on this forum, but instead he is here, attempting character assassination on a guy who has experience that Tricky could only dream of.


I don't need to "debate" David Icke. He is self-evidently ludicrous. And anyone who agrees with him needs their head examined. Or at least probably shouldn't be someone whose opinion you would trust.

I notice you've yet to address any of the substantive comments I've made.

And you think I "dream of" being a pilot? Too funny.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


!!!!

You didn't even make any sense, in the part of my post you quoted!!!

NEVER did I imply that the hijackers needed to MANUALLY trim nose down....I used the BOEING 737 example, to refute member Jetstream's claim, and the FACT that you used his irrelevant "point" to describe something that has no bearing on a Boeing 767!! Read my post again, to understand it more fully. Or, ask a real pilot, who has time in the B-737 and B-767 (well, I do...but you won't pay attention to me, apparently)....

Oh, but the rest of the post? Is it really necessary to repeat the SAME THING every few pages? Why not have one of those "esteemed experts" come on over here, and re-state their opinions. So we can see if they STILL "believe" as they have been portrayed in those silly "P4T" videos.

Keeping the thread title in mind, and seeing (yawn, again!) that video comparing a Cessna 172 instrument panel....it is full of innuendo that completely IGNORES the reality of what those men did, to prepare for that day. It is deceptively made, for that purpose. People who bother to dig deeper, can see those videos for the junk, and deception, that they really are.

I wish YOU would take time to watch, and pay attention again, so you can see what I (and 99.9% of the rest of the world) can see.



edit on 24 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text




top topics



 
141
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join