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: 60
141
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.


All evidence provided by Boeing, NTSB, the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, precedent of numerous events, and a growing list of verified and qualified experts disagree with you.

Where is your evidence that the aircraft were standard Boeing 767's? You have failed to provide any for almost SIXTY pages!

Again Alfie, I guess you still believe in Santa Claus because no one has been able to prove he doesn't exist? Be sure to record him coming down your chimney as you track him on NORAD radar this Dec.





posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I don't know who these others are who do not agree with me but if you are not even claiming that any 9/11 aircraft were modified or substituted then I really don't see what is the alternative to the original aircraft performing as they did. Santa Claus or no Santa Claus.



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

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I don't know who these others are who do not agree with me ...



patriotsquestion911.com...

Click it.

Here's more -

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

What are your quals and experience in aviation Alfie?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I have never said I had any aviation qualifications but that doesn't preclude me from pointing out that if you claim a particular 9/11 aircraft could not have performed in a particular way, while at the same time saying you have never claimed there was any modification or substitution, then there is obviously a logical hole.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I have never said I had any aviation qualifications


So you have none. Thank you for being honest.


but that doesn't preclude me from pointing out that if you claim a particular 9/11 aircraft could not have performed in a particular way,


It's not me claiming it. It is Boeing (as set and defined by Vd), the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, numerous events of precedent, and numerous verified experts.

Did you miss all the evidence I posted? Need me to post it again?


while at the same time saying you have never claimed there was any modification or substitution, then there is obviously a logical hole.


The only "logical hole" is your logical fallacy argument from ignorance of claiming that since it hasn't been proven the aircraft were not standard, then it must be so.

Update - the score remains after SIXTY 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 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You have cut the ground from beneath your own feet by admitting " I'm not claiming they were modified or substituted ".

What else is left then but that the 9/11 flights were undertaken by the original Boeing 757's and 767's ?

You are trying to inject life into a dead horse by reference to a plane exceeding manufacturers guidelines but the hi-jackers were obviously not concerned with what it said on the tin.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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


So what are you actually saying -

The planes were holographs, no planes hit the buildings?

It was not Flight 77, 11, or 175 that hit the buildings?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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.



No, he is talking about two different Incidents in that paragraph then linking over to a new page:

www.airlinesafety.com...
The tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum instead of steel. When one of the rods failed, the elevator was loose and began to flutter, causing excessive loads on the horizontal stabilizer, which then broke off.

I also mention the takeoff crash of the UAL DC-8 freighter, due to full nose up stab trim, in my Editorial on CRM/CLR.


Thanks for providing the link though, even mods make mistakes from time to time.


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

edit on 10/24/2010 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

patriotsquestion911.com...



What is the holdup Tiff? After nine years you got about 75 pilots with a handful at best actually active. You should have 10,000s backing you all by now if what you suggest has even a remote amount of reality as part of it, but it doesn't and here we sit as you toot your 911 truther horn and no one cares to listen...sorry.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You have cut the ground from beneath your own feet by admitting " I'm not claiming they were modified or substituted ".

What else is left then but that the 9/11 flights were undertaken by the original Boeing 757's and 767's ?

You are trying to inject life into a dead horse by reference to a plane exceeding manufacturers guidelines but the hi-jackers were obviously not concerned with what it said on the tin.



If I make a claim, I expect to back it up with evidence. Obviously I cannot "prove" the aircraft were modified as I do not have the parts. Just as you cannot prove the aircraft were standard, because you cannot provide the parts.

All evidence thus far points to the fact that the aircraft as reported could not achieve the speeds reported as well as not able to be controlled by a "hijacker" who had less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claim instead of assumption, speculation or "because the govt told me so...". You and your kind have been failing for more than 60 pages.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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.



No, he is talking about two different Incidents in that paragraph then linking over to a new page:

www.airlinesafety.com...
The tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum instead of steel. When one of the rods failed, the elevator was loose and began to flutter, causing excessive loads on the horizontal stabilizer, which then broke off.

I also mention the takeoff crash of the UAL DC-8 freighter, due to full nose up stab trim, in my Editorial on CRM/CLR.




Please show us the link to the "tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum"

Is he saying a DC-8 is a "turboprop airliner"?

He would be wrong there as well.


Thanks for providing the link though, even mods make mistakes from time to time.


Pleasure is mine.

Now can you please reference in the NTSB report where it says China 006 "exceeded the speed of sound" as your source claimed?

Click here for a reminder.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity
extra DIV



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
What is the holdup Tiff? After nine years you got about 75 pilots with a handful at best actually active.


Actually, it's more like 4 years and 250+ aviation professionals. Please check the founding dates of the organizations cited. As you are wrong once again.


You should have 10,000s backing you all by now


ALPA has been in existence for over 70 years and represent only 9% of the pilot population. Are you saying that 91% of pilots disagree with ALPA?

Your above logical fallacy hasn't worked for the past 4 years and won't work for the next 4. Try a new tactic.


...and here we sit as you toot your 911 truther horn and no one cares to listen...sorry.


And yet you are here not only "listening", but typing on your keyboard to make a reply. Go figure.
edit on 24-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
...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.

You just were shown an aircraft that held together after massively exceeding its limits. Major structural damage means the aircrafts frame was bent, that does not mean that the aircraft is unflyable or failed to hold together.

Pan Am had a 727 called “Bent Bertha” that flew into our station regularly. If you stood at Bertha’s nose and looked toward its tail the aircraft had a very noticeable U shaped bend to its airframe. This was cause when the aircraft flew through the tops of a thunderhead and exceeded its design limits. All they did was re-trim the aircraft, and send it back into rotation.

Loss of parts is also not a catastrophic failure, aircraft shed parts all the time for various reasons. In flight Ops they have lists of all the currant incidents, and it’s not uncommon to see all kinds of parts listed as having fallen off in flight. One that I recall was a 747 losing one of its flaps in some farmers field, you know how BIG the flaps on a 747 are? Can you imagine that farmers face?


Anyway shedding parts can mean anything from losing control surfaces or plastic airfoil pieces to service panel doors. None of those is the same as catastrophic failure and disintegration of the aircrafts main structure. Most of the parts lost are in unpressurized areas. Sometimes it’s something as simple as a ramp agent not seating a service panel or locking it completely and the pilot/lead agent/supervisor missing it in their final walkarounds, more frequently its due to age and plain old wear & tear.

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



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I am completely baffled by your thought process. You say that you " cannot prove the aircraft were modified " but you then go on to speculate about performance. Is that not putting the cart before the horse ? Rather like investigating a murder when you don't actually have any evidence anyone is dead ?

If the planes weren't modified, and you say you don't claim they were, then they patently behaved within their capacity, even if beyond safety guidlines.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You just were shown an aircraft that held together after massively exceeding its limits.


Again - please let us know where it states in the NTSB report that the aircraft exceeded the "speed of sound"..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

By the way, this is not an aircraft which "held together".



Source - Click


We'll get to the rest of your post when you find "exceeding the speed of sound" in the above NTSB report.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Actually, it's more like 4 years and 250+ aviation professionals. Please check the founding dates of the organizations cited. As you are wrong once again.


Actually I ment 75 or so pilots..... With a handful at best actually active. Since I disagree with you I'm not a aviation professional, but Joe Bubba with 40 hours in a Cessna who does agree with you gets that lable..hehe.

I got 28 years of avation experience in the military and fly and teach UAVs today, but I don't count unless I'm on your side...ok I can live with that.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I am completely baffled by your thought process. You say that you " cannot prove the aircraft were modified " but you then go on to speculate about performance.


Is this "speculation"?



Source - 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.

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, it says "STRUCTURAL FAILURE". Very good!

Are you saying Boeing sets limits through pure "speculation" and that the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics are teaching the worlds pilots and aeronautical engineers based on "pure speculation"?

If so, you would be wrong, again.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Joe Bubba with 40 hours in a Cessna who does agree with you gets that lable..hehe.


I looked through this list -

patriotsquestion911.com...

... and I could not find a "Joe Bubba with 40 hours in a Cessna"

Can you please provide a direct link? The direct links to each aviation professional can be found at the top of the page in a drop down menu.


I got 28 years of avation experience in the military and fly and teach UAVs today, but I don't count unless I'm on your side...ok I can live with that.




Let us know when you fly your "UAV" at Vmo+150 and the results. Be sure to put your name to your claims as does the 250+ aviation professionals listed above.

When you do that, you may lend some credibility to your claims.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 

1) How did the plane not exceed its limits? It went into almost a 5G dive:
en.wikipedia.org...

At this point the plane was inside clouds, preventing visual cues for orientation. The plane entered a steep dive at a high bank angle. Altitude decreased 10,000 ft (3,000 m) within only twenty seconds. The crew and passengers experienced g-forces reaching as much as 5g.
Only after breaking through the bottom of the clouds at 11,000 feet (3,400 m) could the captain orient himself and bring the plane under control, leveling out at 9,600 feet (2,900 m). They had descended 30,000 ft (9,100 m) in under two and a half minutes.

2) If it had suffered massive structural damage it would not have spent the next 12 years in service, it would be on the bottom of the pacific ocean.
en.wikipedia.org...

After repairs were made to correct the significant damage to the plane, it returned to service on April 25, 1985. It continued in service for nearly 12 years until it was leased to China Airlines' sister company, Mandarin Airlines, on January 1, 1997.


The point is that aircraft CAN exceed their maximums, and CAN survive the experience.

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



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
We'll get to the rest of your post when you find "exceeding the speed of sound" in the above NTSB report.

Want to argue the point with Wikipedia?
en.wikipedia.org...

Although Concorde and the Tu-144 were the first aircraft to carry commercial passengers at supersonic speeds, they were not the first or only commercial airliners to break the sound barrier. On 21 August 1961, a Douglas DC-8 broke the sound barrier at Mach 1.012 or 1,240 km/h (776.2 mph) while in a controlled dive through 41,088 feet (12,510 m). The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing.[15] A China Airlines 747 almost certainly broke the sound barrier in an unplanned descent from 41,000 ft (12,500 m) to 9,500 ft (2,900 m) after an in-flight upset on 19 February 1985. It also reached over 5g.[16]


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



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
141
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join