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: 68
141
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Can you please give me an idea of how equivalent airspeed has anything to do with my question. Which is, why would anyone modify/ substitute UA 175 so that it hit 80 knots faster than AA 11 ? You are proposing a situation where UA 175, as a basic Boeing 767, could not have hit at 510 knots. Surely you must have some idea why the modifications/ switch were made.


Again Alfie, read this post again, slowly this time.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.



You also made the claim -

"In any event, [EA990 speeds] clearly has no relevance to a Boeing 767 flying at 1000' at 510 knots".

You are flat out wrong. Epic fail.

Do you now understand why you are wrong? Have you learned Equivalent airspeed yet?




posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


And you know this how? How exactly are you so "sure"? Have you polled all pilots in the aviation community?


I'm sure of this for two reasons. First, because P4T and Truthers generally always shout extremely loudly when anyone agrees with them. It's safe to say that anyone who entertains your "ideas" is on your list.

And second, if the entire aviation community really thought that what happened on 9/11 was impossible then it would be common currency. Big news.




Again Tricky, if the claims made by REAL and verified pilots are so "ridiculous", why are you unable to find one verified pilot to support your claims?


I'm not "unable to". I haven't tried.







It doesn't matter how many people agree. Again - Click


You're repeating your silly links as though they prove something. Elsewhere you criticised someone for doing this, saying it was the resort of the desperate.

Once again, I repeat - I am not saying that the unpopularity of your ideas proves their worthlessness. I'm saying that it is significant that they are not gaining any traction, and I'm suggesting that it might have something to do with the fact that even you don't seem to embrace the implications of what you write.




It is you becoming desperate, that is why you are here arguing, day after day, night after night, with people you virtually think are 'nuts'. (err, "unpopular" :@@



You said it, not me.

And are you suggesting that my presence validates your ideas? Why would that be so? Surely if you really thought they had some weight you would be able to get some traction in the wider world.

Yet here you are arguing, day after day, night after night, with people you virtually think are 'nuts'.







Let us know when you poll all aviation professionals who have thoroughly reviewed all of the data, then you may have an argument. Until then, your above claim is a logical fallacy and pure speculation.


It is speculation, yes. But it's very well informed speculation, based on several simple truths.

For example, if it's your contention that most pilots believe what the planes did was impossible, then why is P4T so tiny? Surely everyone would be clamouring to sign up? And why is there so little about all these pilots' concerns in other media? I can't believe that they are all keeping quiet.




Also let us know when you find a theory at Pilotsfor911truth.org.


Yeah, I'm not surprised that it's a theory-free zone. If their other assertions are anything like yours - ie they crumble to dust as soon as anyone asks about their implications - then I imagine it would be hard to come up with anything cogent.




Please quote where I made such a claim. Be sure to provide a link. (Hint - I never made such a claim Tricky, please keep your strawmans to a minimum as readers may start to see a pattern with you.)


Okay, I must have picked you up wrong. Because if there isn't a point at which there is uniform structural failure, and such a failure can occur at a number of points, then your contention that the flights were impossible is speculation.




If you review the evidence, you will note that aircraft are tested to their stress limits during certification, Type Certificate Data sheets are derived from these tests, and precedent is also offered. Those limits are well below the limits reported on 9/11. All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.


You're becoming confused. I pointed out to you why there is a tiny sample size of planes doing the type of thing they did on 9/11. You blundered in and claimed that actually planes are routinely flown at those kind of speeds.

Which is pretty much beyond parody.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


You are just repeating the same old, same old, that you have been doing for 68 pages.

You maintain that UA 175 could not have been a standard Boeing 767 because it would have fallen to bits at 510 knots. This is speculative because you can't actually point to a single example of a Boeing 767 flying at 1000' at 510 knots and breaking up.

So, you don't mind speculating about that but, when you get called out on the logical consequences of what you are proposing you go all coy..

Fact is it makes no sense for the perps to have engineered circumstances so that UA 175 could go 80 knots faster than AA 11. I think you know that as well as I do but you wont address it because it makes nonsense of your UA 175 wasn't a standard Boeing 767 idea.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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.


I literally don't think you understand basic logic.

You say that you have evidence that the planes were not the ones we have been led to believe. Everything you write in this thread is evidence of that contention.

And yet when you're asked to actually admit that this is what you're saying, you refuse to do so.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm sure of this for two reasons. First, because P4T and Truthers generally always shout extremely loudly when anyone agrees with them.


And yet those who blindly support the OS are the loudest people in this thread. Go figure.


Again, until you poll the entire aviation community, your claim is based on pure speculation.


And second, if the entire aviation community really thought that what happened on 9/11 was impossible then it would be common currency. Big news.


Yeah, because the MSM are so honest and cover the "important" topics.


Have you polled the entire aviation community to ask if they are aware of all the data and made an informed decision?





Again Tricky, if the claims made by REAL and verified pilots are so "ridiculous", why are you unable to find one verified pilot to support your claims?


I'm not "unable to". I haven't tried.


And yet the fact remains, you have zero verified pilots to support your claim, even among people who claim to be pilots right here on ATS, and on this thread.

Yet this list grows.

patriotsquestion911.com...




It doesn't matter how many people agree. Again - Click


You're repeating your silly links as though they prove something.


I agree, your argument ad populum is pretty silly, Especially when you have failed to provide any evidence nor one verified pilot to support your your argument, for over 68 pages.




Once again, I repeat - I am not saying that the unpopularity of your ideas proves their worthlessness....


You fool no one Tricky.

What was your intention?

Perhaps this...?


I'm saying that it is significant that they are not gaining any traction, and I'm suggesting that it might have something to do with the fact that even you don't seem to embrace the implications of what you write.


And yet you still fail to provide any evidence for your "implications" aside from "The govt told me so...".


And are you suggesting that my presence validates your ideas?


Are you saying your presence dilutes the evidence provided when you provide no evidence of your own?

Again Tricky, they are not solely my "ideas". It is an argument based on evidence and Expert opinion of a growing list of verified experts. All used daily in a court of law.

Why have you failed to provide evidence for your claims for over 68 pages?



Why would that be so? Surely if you really thought they had some weight you would be able to get some traction in the wider world.


Again - watch the list grow.

Surely if you thought such people were "ridiculous", you would have something better to do? Or at least provide just one piece of evidence to rebut the evidence provided?

Instead, you're loaded with strawmans and logical fallacies.





Let us know when you poll all aviation professionals who have thoroughly reviewed all of the data, then you may have an argument. Until then, your above claim is a logical fallacy and pure speculation.


It is speculation, yes.



As are all your arguments.


For example, if it's your contention that most pilots believe what the planes did was impossible,


Yet another strawman.

How many is that Tricky? This must be a record for you.


then why is P4T so tiny?


Ugh... again your appeal to the masses fallacy. Don't you ever tire of your fallacies? No matter, I'll keep exposing them anyway...

"Tiny" is relative.

Many airlines start with less pilots.

Read this post again, slowly -

www.abovetopsecret.com...




Surely everyone would be clamouring to sign up?


Speculation


And why is there so little about all these pilots' concerns in other media?


Good question. Why exactly does the media ignore all these professionals?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Is it because they are all "nuts"?







Also let us know when you find a theory at Pilotsfor911truth.org.


Yeah, I'm not surprised that it's a theory-free zone.


Then why did you claim "that minuscule numbers of people ascribe to P4T's theories"?

Oh, right, another one of your Strawmans.







Okay, I must have picked you up wrong.


No, you're just loaded with strawman arguments today. Moreso than your average day of perhaps 10 strawman's per post.


Because if there isn't a point at which there is uniform structural failure, and such a failure can occur at a number of points, then your contention that the flights were impossible is speculation.


You need to read the evidence again.

Click

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument as you have been failing for 68 pages.





If you review the evidence, you will note that aircraft are tested to their stress limits during certification, Type Certificate Data sheets are derived from these tests, and precedent is also offered. Those limits are well below the limits reported on 9/11. All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10's of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.


You're becoming confused. I pointed out to you why there is a tiny sample size of planes doing the type of thing they did on 9/11.


You are becoming confused as there has never been an aircraft able to perform as the aircraft did on 911.

Let us know when you find one.

This link may help you in your search -

NTSB Index Of Months



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Fact is it makes no sense for the perps to have engineered circumstances so that UA 175 could go 80 knots faster than AA 11. I think you know that as well as I do but you wont address it because it makes nonsense of your UA 175 wasn't a standard Boeing 767 idea.



Here are the facts Alfie, let me know when you get some for your argument as you have failed for more than SIXTY-EIGHT pages -

(adding NASA Research to the list of evidence regarding flight testing)

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
NASA Research


Precedent -
EA990
China Air 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, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



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 = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


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...". You have been failing for more than NINE years.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



I don't even know where to begin with that reply.

I mean, I've seen cognitive dissonance displayed regularly here, but I've never seen it so spectacularly evident in a single post.

And your rebuttals are just - I mean, I assume you're joking. You spend half the post showing me why the entire aviation community apparently agrees with your ideas, then accuse me of a "strawman" argument when I suggest that this is what you believe.

You completely fail to engage with the notion that you must account for the implications of your ideas. You're confused by my pointing out that your own argument is based on speculation. And you seem to believe that there are simultaneously hundreds of examples of planes flying at extreme stresses and none.

I honestly don't think you comprehend how argument works. I've seen it before here - a manic desire to provide proof for something that the poster doesn't actually even believe. You contend that there is evidence that the planes were modified, and yet you don't believe they were modified.

I mean, what use is that?



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You completely fail to engage with the notion that you must account for the implications of your ideas.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



You're confused by my pointing out that your own argument is based on speculation.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rest of your post were just more strawman arguments, so I won't bother.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Do you really know what a "strawman argument" really is? Or is this kind of like the "blind eye" reference?

I think you have shown time and again that you do not have a firm grasp on the basic functions of logic and reason.

Are you familiar with the term "rebuttable presumption"? This is a key aspect in testing an argument.

For instance:

You contend that unless you are allowed to examine the exact complete remains of the plane in question than any presumption that you make about the plane (been modified by person or persons unknown for reason or reasons unknown) is equally valid to all other presumptions. This is not true.

The presumption that the plane in question is exactly as the records show it to be, a standard plane of its model and type, is held as correct until such time as facts are presented that would "rebut" that presumption. Why? Because all known facts indicate that there was no special modifications. Sorry.

This is also key to your understanding of why it is not necessary for anyone to go about and gather all the opinions of all the known pilots every time an question is breached from without or within that community.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The presumption that the plane in question is exactly as the records show it to be, a standard plane of its model and type, is held as correct until such time as facts are presented that would "rebut" that presumption.





Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false


Source - Click

I assume you also feel Santa Claus exists because his route of flight is tracked by NORAD each Christmas Eve, and that this is "held as correct until such time as facts are presented that would "rebut" that presumption."



Might have something to do with this post as well, and the ADMIN note attached.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 3-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



I assume you also feel Santa Claus exists because his route of flight is tracked by NORAD each Christmas Eve, and that this is "held as correct until such time as facts are presented that would "rebut" that presumption."


Thank you for proving my point. Santa Claus is a well known work of literary fiction and folklore.
Fiction and folklore.
So the presumption - the cummalitive results of the known facts - is that SC is NOT real.
Unless you can present facts to rebut that presumption.
Just like your "modified" plane.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Thank you for proving my point. Santa Claus is a well known work of literary fiction and folklore.
Fiction and folklore.
So the presumption - the cummalitive results of the known facts - is that SC is NOT real.
Unless you can present facts to rebut that presumption.
Just like your "modified" plane.


"Rebuttable presumption" is based on prima facie (face value of the evidence presented), until proven false.

In other words, since you have not been able to provide any evidence to "rebut" my evidence listed above, You lose.

If it makes you feel better, I can start listing ATS members under those who argue in support of the OS, since it is clear none of you can find a verified pilot willing to support your claims.

Hey, I'm trying to help you out here. You guys haven't been able to provide anything to rebut my evidence.
edit on 3-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The rest of your post were just more strawman arguments, so I won't bother.


Ooookay. I'm not sure you actually know what a strawman is. It's not "something that Tiffany can't answer", just in case that's what you think.

But we're going in circles. You are repeatedly shown where your argument is faulty and you repeatedly either ignore what is written, pretend to misunderstand it or designate it a "strawman". So I'm not going to go over it again and again.

I have one question though, which comes out of what you're written above. You got very upset when I suggested that the majority of the aviation community don't think there's anything suspicious about the planes on 9/11. And then when I said that it was your contention that a majority of the aviation community do think there was something suspicious about it you said that I was constructing one of your famous "strawmen".

But which is it? Do you think that a majority of people involved in aviation think there is something manifestly wrong with the speeds shown? You must believe one thing or the other.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


"Rebuttable presumption" is based on prima facie (face value of the evidence presented), until proven false.

In other words, since you have not been able to provide any evidence to "rebut" my evidence listed above, You lose.


The prima facie evidence says that the planes were what the OS says they were. That they hit the towers.

Prima facie literally means "at first sight". This is what the situation, prima facie, is.

Until you can find evidence that that situation is untrue then it remains the most likely case. And since you claim not to have that evidence then the OS is on very firm ground here.

Put it this way - you have either proved that the planes were modified, that they weren't real, or that their speeds were wrong. Since you freely admit you've done none of this then the balance of probabilities suggests that the OS is right.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

The rest of your post were just more strawman arguments, so I won't bother.


And then when I said that it was your contention that a majority of the aviation community do think there was something suspicious about it you said that I was constructing one of your famous "strawmen".


That is not what you said.

You even twist your own words Tricky, why is that?



Do you think that a majority of people involved in aviation think there is something manifestly wrong with the speeds shown? You must believe one thing or the other.


What does it matter what "I think"? Are you interested in facts or opinion?

Let us know when you poll the entire aviation community after having informed them of all the data, then you may have an argument.

Let us also know when you get one verified expert to support your claims, you have been failing for over 68 pages.
edit on 5-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: fixed tags



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


"Rebuttable presumption" is based on prima facie (face value of the evidence presented), until proven false.

In other words, since you have not been able to provide any evidence to "rebut" my evidence listed above, You lose.


The prima facie evidence says that the planes were what the OS says they were. That they hit the towers.

Prima facie literally means "at first sight". This is what the situation, prima facie, is.


Now you're getting it. And if no one rebutted such Prima Facie 'evidence', then the OS would have the luxury of "rebuttable presumption".

But since there is a growing mountain of evidence which rebuts the OS, in almost all areas of the OS, including Expert Witnesses, the OS no longer stands on its own merits of Prima Facie and therefore demands a thorough investigation.

One with a Commission that was not "Set up to fail".

Once subpoena power is granted, the parts, the steel, documents being withheld... etc, can then be examined, along with the implications of the growing mountain of evidence which rebuts the OS can also be explored based on data and facts.

As for the topic of this thread, you lose based on "Rebuttable presumption" solely due to the fact you haven't been able to rebut the long list of evidence I have provided. In fact, the examples that some attempted to use as a rebuttal to the evidence listed, only strengthened my argument as there has not been one aircraft presented which was able to reach Vmo+150 knots and remained stable/controllable and/or held together.

You , however, wish to shift the topic to a discussion based on pure speculation due to the fact you know it is near impossible to discuss the implications without subpoena power.

It a typical tactic you people use and has thoroughly been exposed right here in this thread.

Again, I can start listing ATS Members under your side of the evidence (which I probably will on the next update), but it literally holds no weight and is easily rebutted, mainly due to the fact anonymous individuals have no merit when up against verified expert witnesses.

As for Strawman arguments.

You consistently and repeatedly attribute theories and claims to me which I have never stated, solely so you can attempt to knock down such fabricated claims later. This is the classic strawman argument and you and your obfuscation brigade use such a tactic religiously. Its not working.

You lose Tricky.
edit on 5-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Clarity



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Ah, the ever popular "mountain of evidence". Priceless. Talk about "first" and lack of precendent. When else in history has there really been a "mountain of evidence" and yet EVERYONE chooses to ignore it? Completely. Utterly. No regard given.

Yet here you are with your self-proclaimed "mountain of evidence" and, well, nothing. No popular clamour for a "new investigation", no reporters knocking down your door and shoving microphones in your face, no invitations to speak to halls full of experts. Just complete silence.

I guess everyone is either stupid or in on it. And don't start with the "argumentum ad populum". It does not apply here.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Ah, the ever popular "mountain of evidence". Priceless. Talk about "first" and lack of precendent. When else in history has there really been a "mountain of evidence" and yet EVERYONE chooses to ignore it? Completely. Utterly. No regard given.


You must have a different definition of "EVERYONE" than what is known and accepted.

Click the link and watch the lists grow of "EVERYONE who chooses to ignore it".

patriotsquestion911.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


And then when I said that it was your contention that a majority of the aviation community do think there was something suspicious about it you said that I was constructing one of your famous "strawmen".


That is not what you said.


Really? Let's have a look...



For example, if it's your contention that most pilots believe what the planes did was impossible,



Yet another strawman.


During your above post you take issue with my contention that most pilots do not agree with you, and then you say it's a "strawman" when I say that you think that most pilots do agree with you! It is either true that a majority of pilots agree with you or you that they don't.

You can pretend this is unimportant, but since a major plank of your case is an argument from authority it is of significant interest.






What does it matter what "I think"? Are you interested in facts or opinion?


Both. As are you.

Put it this way, it is apparently Bob and Russ and the P4T boys' opinion that the flights were impossible. I am interested in whether that opinion is shared by a majority of aviation professionals. It seems not. And it also seems that you can't make up your mind about whether it is or not.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You lose Tricky.



Yes, I'm losing.

You say you have evidence that concludes that the planes were modified or not real. But that you don't believe either scenario. You have a tiny list of people who agree with you. You proudly assert that you have no theory. There is no sign of anyone of any note taking you seriously.

I think this is a "loss" i can live with.







 
141
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join