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: 59
141
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
And you still have yet to provide a source.


As source for what? The fact that I went to Top Gun when I was 13? What do you want, ticket stubs?

Seriously though, if you like I'll spend some time finding a pilot who disagrees with you. It'll probably take me a couple of days but I imagine I could do it. The thing is, there's no point. Even with no experience of flying a plane I can see your arguments are shot full of holes. And you're not getting anywhere. If P4T were actually some kind of threat to the status quo, or looked like they were influencing anything at all, then I'd probably expend more than a minuscule amount of effort.





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


In any substantive way, nobody cares. The world is happily ignorant of your crackpot theories. And that's how it seems to be staying.

Obviously a vanishingly minute number of people do care a bit. But it's a figure of speech, like saying "nobody cares about the 80s computer game Commando." In actual fact a tiny number of obsessives do. But you're a similarly obscure sort of outfit.


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


I'm here because I care about snake oil salesmen and the maintenance of some basic standard of logic. I dislike unscrupulous people profiting from idiocy. I can't stand the urge to make up nonsense and voodoo theories to sell stuff.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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)....


Hardly anyone pays attention to you weedwhacker, I bet less than 2 or 3 people read your long winded ranting posts in full.

You are here making claims that even YOU won't back up with your real name to be verified, as does the numerous other 757/767 Capts who can, and also disagree with you.

From what I understand, you were spanked over at P4T forum. The only thing you had in terms of debate is exactly what the others see here, mostly character assassination. So you got banned. Now you go around screaming P4T bans anyone who disagrees with them.

No, they ban people who personally attack them, cannot debate civilly, nor stick to topic.

Anyone can readily see your "debate" style right here in this thread.


Why not have one of those "esteemed experts" come on over here, and re-state their opinions.


Funny you ask.

I was cc'ed on an email -


Bingo, Ralph!
They could eat my foreskin! I really don't give a f*** what a bunch of pilot wannabes, right wing loons and government shills say about me!
....you may quote me on this!
Rusty


In case you were wondering, the above is from Capt Rusty Aimer.

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

Why have you not emailed Ralph or Rusty to state YOUR opinions of them? You know who they are, they are easy to find, but I guarantee they don't know who you are. Why do you think that is weedwhacker? Especially when Tricky claims "Nobody cares about a bunch of whack-job pilots"....?





posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Do you have any evidence that Boeing 767's that flew on 9/11 as AA 11 and UA 175 were :-

(a) modified in any way ?
or
(b) substituted ?

Thanks



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Even with no experience of flying a plane I can see your arguments are shot full of holes.


And yet the score remains after FIFTY-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, 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, 24 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Now you're just joking, surely?


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA The only thing you had in terms of debate is exactly what the others see here, mostly character assassination...
No, they ban people who personally attack them, cannot debate civilly, nor stick to topic.





They could eat my foreskin! I really don't give a f*** what a bunch of pilot wannabes, right wing loons and government shills say about me!
....you may quote me on this!
Rusty


Yeah, that guy sounds civil. And not into character assassination at all.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Yeah. you see, you keep saying that, but it's not actually true.

You also notably don't engage with half of the stuff people post which directly shows the fatuity of your "arguments". To the extent that you're now just cutting and pasting in what looks like an attempt to prolong a thread that increasingly resembles a shoddy spam advert for your hat shop.

I'm done here, helping you prolong your advertisement. Let me know when it actually looks like someone of note, or any more than about 0.0001 per cent of the population, is engaging with your ideas with anything other than hilarity.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Do you have any evidence that Boeing 767's that flew on 9/11 as AA 11 and UA 175 were :-

(a) modified in any way ?
or
(b) substituted ?

Thanks


Do you have any evidence that the Boeing 767's (and 757's) that flew on 9/11 as UA 175, AA11, AA77 and UA93 were standard aircraft as manufactured by Boeing?

Because according to Boeing and the Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics, a standard Boeing cannot achieve speeds of 510 knots near sea level.



Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

767 Vd = 420 knots

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

EA990 is further evidence of that fact as EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

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



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Now you're just joking, surely?


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA The only thing you had in terms of debate is exactly what the others see here, mostly character assassination...
No, they ban people who personally attack them, cannot debate civilly, nor stick to topic.





They could eat my foreskin! I really don't give a f*** what a bunch of pilot wannabes, right wing loons and government shills say about me!
....you may quote me on this!
Rusty


Yeah, that guy sounds civil. And not into character assassination at all.


Or perhaps he just has no respect for people who attack him anonymously on forums.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
To the extent that you're now just cutting and pasting in what looks like an attempt to prolong a thread...


Yeah, because I'm the only one posting in this thread.




that increasingly resembles a shoddy spam advert for your hat shop.


You continually make this claim. What are you referencing? What "hat shop" is "mine"?

Why do you continually fail to provide source for your claims?
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tag



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


This is where the argument has gone topsy-turvy. Unless you can provide a shred of evidence that the Boeing 757's and 767's of 9/11 were modified in any way or substituted then the inference must be that the originals did what they did.

Anything else is about as useful arguing about how many angels can you get on the head of a pin.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


This is where the argument has gone topsy-turvy. Unless you can provide a shred of evidence that the Boeing 757's and 767's of 9/11 were modified in any way or substituted then the inference must be that the originals did what they did.

Anything else is about as useful arguing about how many angels can you get on the head of a pin.



The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of your claims. You claim AA11 and UA175, reported to be standard fleet type 767's, hit the WTC.

All data, precedent and experts conflict with such a notion.

What is your proof that the aircraft which hit the WTC were standard aircraft?

You and your obfuscation brigade have failed to provide any evidence for almost SIXTY pages!

Matter of fact, the "evidence" that has been provided by your kind, has proven to support the fact that aircraft cannot exceed their manufactured set limits by 150 knots without suffering in flight structural failure, losing 10's of thousands of feet, crash and/or were modified to do so.

I'm STILL waiting for someone to back up the claims on China 006. Weedwhacker seems to conveniently ignore it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


No, this is how you have managed to keep the debate going for 59 pages. You are deliberately approaching from the wrong end.

First, you have to offer some evidence that the 9/11 aircraft were modified or substituted. If you can do that then it is worth considering the performance of the aircraft as corroboration.

If you can't do that; it is all so much hot air.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 




From what I understand, you were spanked over at P4T forum.


I never joined the "P4T" forum. It is a joke, as displayed each time I see it referenced here. I used to hold my nose, and peek in long ago....but saw nothing but idiocy and nonsense. AND, it is disgusting to see that same ignorance brought HERE.....



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


No, this is how you have managed to keep the debate going for 59 pages. You are deliberately approaching from the wrong end.

First, you have to offer some evidence that the 9/11 aircraft were modified or substituted. If you can do that then it is worth considering the performance of the aircraft as corroboration.

If you can't do that; it is all so much hot air.



I';m not claiming they were "modified or substituted".

I am claiming the reported speeds are "impossible", "improbable" and "The Elephant in the room".

And I have listed my evidence.

You and your kind claim that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error, for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway in a 172 at 65 knots-- and that the aircraft which hit the WTC were standard aircraft.

You and your kind have yet to provide ANY evidence for your claims to date.

Those who blindly support the OS have continually used the argument that "if it can't be proven false, it must be true". eg. UA175 and AA11 were standard aircraft because no one has been able to prove it false.

This is a logical fallacy - Argument From Ignorance

This is the equivalent of saying, "Santa Claus must exist because no one has been able to prove he doesn;t and due to the fact NORAD tracks him each year".

Do you still believe in Santa Claus, Alfie?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Sorry...I DO have a life outside, and have to eat, sleep and do stuff....not dance for YOUR amusement....


I'm STILL waiting for someone to back up the claims on China 006. Weedwhacker seems to conveniently ignore it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The report does say that no aural warnings of overspeed were recorded on the CVR., nor stick shakers. (These are triggered by the air data computer, based on a number of parameters, to include airspeed and angle of attack)..but, surely, flaps/slats retracted, and 80 KIAS?? Regardless of AoA, stick shakers (at least one) should have activated. So, that's a mystery.

POINT is, though.....the airplane experienced FIVE Gs....that was also in my post, and is being ignored. Why? I'll tell you why....it is the typical "P4T" tactic, seen over and over. It's called "cherry-picking"....or, in some instances, "quote mining".

China Airlines flight 006 experienced sustained high Gs, and those Gs would have been encountered when at high airspeeds.....because, you see "Tiff", at 80 knots it WILL STALL (look up one definition of "Va", as it applies to your little Cessna). It will stall, at insufficient airspeed, BEFORE it can generate those sorts of G forces.

SO, that jet HELD TOGETHER enough to prevent a total catastrophic structural failure, although in most respects it severely exceeded many published "limitations". It suffered permanent distortions (wings bent up, at the roots, by about two feet, or so...it's in the Report). YET....it made it safely to landing in SFO. It was about 300 NM offshore, over the Pacific, at the time of the accident. About an HOUR to fly, still...AFTER the event. Yet, there it is.


End of story. "Cherry-picking" and "quote mining" are is the only "tools" in the "P4T" kit, and are over-used ---- which should be apparent to everyone who takes time to pay attention.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 




From what I understand, you were spanked over at P4T forum.


I never joined the "P4T" forum. It is a joke, as displayed each time I see it referenced here. I used to hold my nose, and peek in long ago....but saw nothing but idiocy and nonsense. AND, it is disgusting to see that same ignorance brought HERE.....


This post proves you a liar.


Be sure to tell weedwhacker i personally thank him for confirming why i changed his sock here to the name
"weedwhacker". (Weedy acted aloof when i changed his sock here to "weedwhacker" as if that wasnt him. He got suspended for numerous ad homs and personal attacks, like you see at the other forum, I then blocked his IP here last week sometime on another few socks he tried registered because i knew he would gripe about it at ATS and give up his "identity". He fell for it hook, line and sinker. wink.gif)

You can also let him know his IP is no longer blocked. We enjoy him reading our forum and then giving us publicity at other forums. smile.gif


Source


Weedwhacker, was there a point in time where you could not read the P4T forum and you griped about it here on ATS? How would P4T know your IP if you never were a registered member? Do I need to prove you a liar once again?

Wheedwhacker, when are you going to address this?


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
POINT is, though.....the airplane experienced FIVE Gs....that was also in my post, and is being ignored. Why?


Weedwhacker, you claimed -

"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. "


Are you now willing to admit you were wrong regarding "excessive speed"?


"Cherry-picking" and "quote mining" are is the only "tools" in the "P4T" kit, and are over-used ---- which should be apparent to everyone who takes time to pay attention.


It appears you embellish to suit your bias, and then when called on it, you spin into a frenzy.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Now you go around screaming P4T bans anyone who disagrees with them.

No, they ban people who personally attack them, cannot debate civilly, nor stick to topic.


Once again you are wrong - they ban people who point out their lies, and that they are wrong - remember, they still have the lie that Flight 77's cockpit door was not opened at all, ignoring the little fact that the door sensor was not connected - but if you mention that you are banned



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Now you go around screaming P4T bans anyone who disagrees with them.

No, they ban people who personally attack them, cannot debate civilly, nor stick to topic.


Once again you are wrong - they ban people who point out their lies, and that they are wrong - remember, they still have the lie that Flight 77's cockpit door was not opened at all, ignoring the little fact that the door sensor was not connected - but if you mention that you are banned


At the risk of drifting off-topic (which I'm sure is your intent) - irony at it's best.

No one has been able to prove the door sensor was not connected on N644AA. Let us know when you have such a manual.

Matter of fact, the custom data frame layout provided by American Airlines defined parameters and condition of the FLIGHT DECK DOOR. Why would American Airlines include that in a custom DFL if it wasn't "hooked-up"?

In contrast, UA93 Custom DFL does not include a parameter for the FLIGHT DECK DOOR - you know why? That's correct! Because United did not record the status of the FLIGHT DECK DOOR.

Let us know when you have some evidence for the claim that the cockpit door was open for a hijack to occur on AA77, N644AA.

As with all of the arguments of those who blindly support the OS, "Because the govt told me so..." is not evidence.

As proven time and time again in this thread, all data, evidence and growing list of numerous experts, conflict with your theories and your blind support of the OS.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Clarity



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


If you are not claiming that the 9/11 Boeing 757's and 767's were modified or substituted then the inescapable conclusion is that they did what they did.




top topics



 
141
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join