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: 70
141
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


The problem is that Tiffany does think a passenger jet hit the towers. She just also think she has evidence which renders this scenario impossible.

She is, in short, very confused.


This is what happens when you go to those damned fool conspiracy web sites for all your information. You wind up so confused after reading all these "irrefutable evidence" of lasers from outer space, nukes in the basement, no planes, controlled demolitions, or whatever, that you get so scrambled you don't know whether to scratch your watch or wind your butt. Despite all this supposed unlikihood of Al Qaida pulling off the attack, it would take 1000x times more resources, organization, and threat of exposure to pull off any of these ridiculous alternative conspiracy claims.

Maybe this revelation will help you make up your mind, Tiffany: always believing the gov't always lies is equally as naive as always believing the gov't always tells the truth. The gov't is always going to say whatever makes it look good, regardless of whether it's a lie or the truth.




posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Update -

We are now on page SEVENTY (20 past the initial prediction, and only 30 more to go for the final prediction) -

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
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, 5 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


If by "derail" you mean simply pointed out that your train was never on the track - well I guess you can call it derail.

I posit that American Airlines Flight 175 on Sept. 11, 2001 crashed into the South Tower at the World Trade Center, speed at the time of impact was approximately 510 mph. The plane involved in Flight 175 was a Boeing Model 767-222.

The presumption is therefore ready for factual rebuttal - have fun.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

How can you declare Tricky "spanked" me when you don't even know what is being argued?


All right, fair enough....



Dave, if you're not going to give us the common courtesy to familiarize yourself with the argument and come into the argument in the middle of the discussion, please tell me why I should give you the courtesy to even read your posts and correct each one of your arguments?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I posit that American Airlines Flight 175 on Sept. 11, 2001 crashed into the South Tower at the World Trade Center, speed at the time of impact was approximately 510 mph. The plane involved in Flight 175 was a Boeing Model 767-222.

The presumption is therefore ready for factual rebuttal - have fun.


The OS says that United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower. Not American.

American 11 went into the North Tower according to the OS.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the basics before arguing the details.




posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Check this out. I was doing a little google research and discovered that the maximum cruising speed for the Boeing 767 is 914 km/h which (according to google's calculator) is 567.93327 mi/h.

It's under the performance section on the left:
www.airliners.net...

And here's a fun little pdf all about the speed of the aircraft on 9/11:
web.mit.edu...


In light of this, I would say that it was entirely possible.


Boeing 767's don't "cruise" at 700 feet above the ground.

You really should click the links under the Data evidence above. Specifically the Boeing Type Certificate Data Sheet (Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing), and learn Vmo.
edit on 5-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Ironic, coming from someone who uses the terms "improbable" and "impossible" interchangeably.


Another one of your strawmans.


How is this a strawman? It's nothing of the sort. Earlier in the thread I pointed out to you that one of the sources you were using to claim that the flights were "impossible" actually merely said they were improbable. You became annoyed, saying that I was splitting hairs.

And yet when I use words with slightly different nuances, in sentences that amount to pretty much the same thing, your'e suddenly the arbiter of exactly correct usage?




Are you claiming "impossible" and "suspicious" are "interchangeable"? It appears so, considering you think my words were interchangeable. You are wrong as usual.


I don't think your words were interchangeable! Quite the opposite. You used them as such.





It is "difficult" to come to a conclusion when they haven't been polled. You seem to disagree.


I do. I think it's pretty easy to conclude that they don't, since only a tiny handful have joined your group, and the subject never seems to interest anyone except a minuscule number of pilots.


And if you don't think that most pilots think it impossible, that must mean that you think most pilots consider it possible.


Click



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA



No Tricky, I'm not confused, it is you who are confused.

Again, read the evidence list.


I have read it. It says that it was impossible for UA175 to hit the tower.

And yet you seem to think UA175 hit the tower.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Talk about "strawman"!!!

Let the record show the correct carrier name. Will you stipluate to the remainder?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How is this a strawman? It's nothing of the sort. Earlier in the thread I pointed out to you that one of the sources you were using to claim that the flights were "impossible" actually merely said they were improbable.


I see you STILL have yet to click the sources, as they are two different people.

Since it is clear you don't wish to become thoroughly informed of the argument, I have no desire to correct the rest of yours.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument instead of attempting to derail the thread.

The topic of this thread is "911: Even REAL pilots couldn't do it".

I have backed that up not only with a growing list of multiple verified expert witnesses, but also data and precedent.

You have not been able to rebut any of it. Therefore, based on the topic of this thread, and "rebuttable presumption", you lose.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Talk about "strawman"!!!

Let the record show the correct carrier name. Will you stipluate[sic] to the remainder?


Sure...


Originally posted by hooper
... speed at the time of impact was approximately 510 mph....


Click the above NTSB link under my Data evidence. Then learn the difference between knots and mph.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Yep. Strawman.

Do you stipulate to the NTSB data?



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Yep. Strawman.

Do you stipulate to the NTSB data?


It appears not only are you not familiar with which airline is which based on the OS, nor are you familiar with knots vs. mph, but you are also not familiar with a strawman argument.

Let's start with the latter -

For example -

If I were to say,

"Hey hooper, you claim American Airlines 175 hit the south tower, you are wrong, it was United 175 according to the OS".


Now, if you never made such a claim that "American Airlines 175" hit the south tower, then that would be a strawman argument on my part, fabricating a claim that you never made, in order to make you look bad.

But the fact of the matter is, you DID make such a claim, and I corrected it.

This is not a "strawman". It is the result of you not familiar with the basics, let alone the details.

As for "stipulate" -

No, I do not "stipulate". You are wrong. You need to concede to the facts, and stop watching too much Law and Order.

The fact is that the NTSB reports the speed in knots. 510 knots to be exact, based on ASR radar. This is a major difference than mph. Clearly you are unaware of such a difference.

hooper, since you like to fabricate and modify quotes of ATS Members, due to the fact you are unable to discuss the facts as aptly pointed out by an ATS Administrator, and demonstrated here on this very page, combined with the fact you are completely confused on the basics, I see no reason to educate you on the specifics.

It's simple hooper, let us know when you get one verified expert to support your claims (or "stipulations"), as you and your obfuscation brigade have failed for over 70 pages. If you find just one (or any evidence for that matter), I will be happy to update the "evidence" under the argument of those who blindly support the OS.
edit on 5-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I can’t believe it. After 70 pages you are arguing over United or American! You are knit picking over minutia. It doesn’t really matter in grand picture.

The TM are saying the pilots couldn’t possibly fly the flight profile that the radar indicates. But as far as I know laser beams and holograms don’t give any radar reflections. So they are willing to accept the flight data of the OS. But not the part of it being airplanes?

So sad.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA



No Tricky, I'm not confused, it is you who are confused.

Again, read the evidence list.


I have read it. It says that it was impossible for UA175 to hit the tower.

And yet you seem to think UA175 hit the tower.



Please quote exactly where it says "UA175" in this evidence list, or admit you once again attempt a strawman.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tricky, clearly you are not familiar with the fact that a flight number does not constitute positive identification of aircraft type.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
I can’t believe it. After 70 pages you are arguing over United or American! You are knit picking over minutia. It doesn’t really matter in grand picture.

The TM are saying the pilots couldn’t possibly fly the flight profile that the radar indicates. But as far as I know laser beams and holograms don’t give any radar reflections. So they are willing to accept the flight data of the OS. But not the part of it being airplanes?

So sad.


Ugh, another coming into the argument without reading the thread.

Sam, we are not arguing whether aircraft hit the towers.Clearly aircraft hit the WTC. There is tons of evidence for that.

We are arguing whether they were the aircraft as reported, standard 767's.

The evidence listed so far reflects that it is impossible for a standard 767 to perform as reported.

Those who blindly support the OS have not been able to rebut such evidence in over 70 pages.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

How can you declare Tricky "spanked" me when you don't even know what is being argued?


All right, fair enough....



Dave, if you're not going to give us the common courtesy to familiarize yourself with the argument and come into the argument in the middle of the discussion, please tell me why I should give you the courtesy to even read your posts and correct each one of your arguments?


...becuase the statement I posted is still correct. There is more than enough evidence to show that yes, it was flights AA11 and UA175 that struck the towers, so your needing to calculate out esoteric details like g-forces, load stresses, and weight to thrust ratios to find this secret conspiracy you're "so sure" is there is still a mark of desperation on your part, regardless of whether you're referring to the Pentagon attack or the WTC attack.

Not to mention, my criticism of your poor interpretation of the poll is still spot on, regardless of your attempts at strawman arguments to change the subject.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There is more than enough evidence to show that yes, it was flights AA11 and UA175 that struck the towers,


Now provide positive identification that AA11 and UA175 as reported, were standard 767's.

All the evidence provided conflicts with your theory. Have you clicked on any of it? Clearly not.

"Rebuttable presumption" is also against you.

If you need lesson on what "Positive Identification" means, be sure to email Pilots For 9/11 Truth as they have several who can perhaps give you a lesson, including an Aircraft Accident Investigator who teaches at one of the most credible aviation universities in the world.

Click

If you don;t "trust" P4T, I can provide links to other schools. Let me know. I'm here to help.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I’m sorry I didn’t the previous 70 pages of drivel debating who’s plane hit which tower.

Since we agree that two planes hit two towers, then two pilots did the flying. It makes no difference whether they flew the planes beyond their design envelope or not. Not everything breaks the instant you exceed the design limits. It’s not like they were planning on using the planes again anyway.



posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Not everything breaks the instant you exceed the design limits.


And no one has made such a claim.

But, there has never been an aircraft presented which exceeded it's limits by 150 knots (read: 510 knots for a 767), and survived.

Egypt Air 990 broke apart at 5 knots into the Structural Failure Zone as depicted by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and Boeing limitation set by wind tunnel and flight tests.



You would know this if you read the thread.

Actually, you don;t even need to read all 70 pages, Just click the source links in my evidence post above.


edit on 5-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: Clarity



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join