9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

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

Actually, I believe 175 was a 767-222. You should read up on this stuff.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

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

Actually, I believe 175 was a 767-222. You should read up on this stuff.

Are you saying a "767" is not a 767-222?

Keep posting hooper, your desperation is showing.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Typical. Hyperbole.

Egypt Air 990 broke apart.

Egypt Air 990 did not "break apart". People can read the official Accident Report for themselves, in detail, and do not have to rely on the "PilotsFor9/11Truth"s skewed opinons and outright misrepresentations any more. Sadly, though...many will accept the garbage, without checking.

"P4T" is constantly playing fast and loose with facts, and "spinning" faster than the Tazmanian Devil in Bugs Bunny cartoons. And getting about as much respect. too.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Egypt Air 990 did not "break apart". People can read the official Accident Report for themselves, in detail, and do not have to rely on the "PilotsFor9/11Truth"s skewed opinons and outright misrepresentations any more. Sadly, though...many will accept the garbage, without checking.

"P4T" is constantly playing fast and loose with facts, and "spinning" faster than the Tazmanian Devil in Bugs Bunny cartoons. And getting about as much respect. too.....

weedwhacker -

According to the NTSB (which has been covered ad nauseaum in this thread and sourced thoroughly), Egypt Air lost it's left engine, wing panels and horizontal stab skin, at 5 knots above its Vmo, while still in flight.

Now, I don't know about you, but numerous verified 757/767 Captain's I have sourced consider that a major in flight structural failure.

You claim to be a pilot. Do you disagree with the 757/767 Captain's I have sourced?

And if so, are you willing to put your name to your claims as do the Captain's I have sourced which anyone can verify?

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

Neither did these. So I guess it's fits the OS quite well.

Originally posted by samkent
Neither did these. So I guess it's fits the OS quite well.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks

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

After SEVENTY-ONE 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
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.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Actually, I am laughing my butt off. I see you're stuck back in the "it never happened before so it can't happen" loop. Most folks eventually see around that. They come to the reasonable conclusion that:

a) Before anything can happen again it MUST happen the first time.

If there is no record of something happening before than it must mean that:

a) No record was made.
b) Records are not available.
c) It never happened before.

None of the above, however, are a basis to declare that something CAN'T happen.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Actually, I am laughing my butt off. I see you're stuck back in the "it never happened before so it can't happen" loop. Most folks eventually see around that. They come to the reasonable conclusion that:

a) Before anything can happen again it MUST happen the first time.

If there is no record of something happening before than it must mean that:

a) No record was made.
b) Records are not available.
c) It never happened before.

None of the above, however, are a basis to declare that something CAN'T happen.

Read the evidence again hooper.

The difference between you and me is the fact that I feel there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation by a Commission that was not "Set up to fail".

You on the other hand feel that since it hasn't been proven false, the OS must be true, regardless of how much evidence there is which conflict with the OS.

With all that said, you are still here day after day, attempting to say to others reading "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

Its not working, especially when you cannot even understand the basics, and have been proven to be deceptive in your debate style due to the fact you cannot debate the facts.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Read the evidence again hooper.

I'm sorry - you calling anything you post on the internet "evidence" does not, in fact, make it evidence. In fact you should consider the concept of evidence as a verb. In a court of law one side must present a series of facts that evidences their theory of the events. You have failed on both aspects - you present no relevant facts and present no cohesive theory. Therefore - no "evidence".

The difference between you and me is the fact that I feel there is enough evidence to warrant a new investigation by a Commission that was not "Set up to fail".

"Feelings" are fine. We all have "feelings". They, generally speaking, however, are not the basis to convene a Federal investigation.

You on the other hand feel that since it hasn't been proven false, the OS must be true, regardless of how much evidence there is which conflict with the OS.

Uh, yeah, Again, no conflicting "evidence" therefore the "OS" stands.

With all that said, you are still here day after day, attempting to say to others reading "Nothing to see here folks, move along".

I don't know if you just haven't picked up on this or what - but no one is stopping to look so there really is nothing to see.

Its not working, especially when you cannot even understand the basics, and have been proven to be deceptive in your debate style due to the fact you cannot debate the facts.

Well, it would appear that I, with all my lack of knowledge and deception, have the upper hand as I see no new "investigation" on any horizon, near or far.

Originally posted by hooper
In a court of law one side must present a series of facts that evidences their theory of the events.

First of all, this is the ATS Forum, not a court of law, with lawyer, with subpoena power.

Secondly, it is the OS "theory" that is being disputed here. Read the topic of the thread again.

Third, there is a growing mountain of evidence which rebuts such a theory.

Finally, let us know when you provide some evidence and/or a verified expert witness for your theory and/or to rebut the evidence/verified experts witnesses I have provided You have failed for over 71 pages, which in turn, by definition of "rebuttable presumption", you lose.

P4T Vg diagram lesson




A = BE CAREFUL

B = OOPS !!!

C = CERTAIN DEATH

So remember pilots if you ever get near VNE, yank back on the yoke real hard to avoid going past it.

I Love the Truth Movement.

Originally posted by waypastvne
P4T Vg diagram lesson

[snipped image]

A = BE CAREFUL

B = OOPS !!!

C = CERTAIN DEATH

So remember pilots if you ever get near VNE, yank back on the yoke real hard to avoid going past it.

I Love the Truth Movement.

edit on 5-11-2010 by waypastvne because: I wanted to

Do this one! Do this one!



Then go tell the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, along with every flight school and every pilot on this planet, they have it all wrong.

So remember pilots if you ever get near VNE, yank back on the yoke real hard to avoid going past it.

If you've ever flown an aircraft, that is exactly part of the procedure to avoid exceeding Vne and therefore structural failure. Albeit "smooth" and not "hard", along with reducing thrust to idle.

Call your local flight school as it is clear you need a lesson, or twenty.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA



Excuse me young lady, but can you tell me something...

Can you find out from the unemployed (living in friends basement) pilot Balsamo what happened to his "evidence" that was presented in the April Gallop law suit?

Thanks... and I love that top on you.

The OS supporters are doing a great service for me in this thread... they're keeping it alive.

Why has it taken 71 pages without ONE pilot putting his/her name for the alleged UA175 to be easy to control at +150 knots beyond its design limits? (I'm not a pilot, so the technical Vx terms don't bother me so much.)

The more they keep this thread alive, the more I see Tiff's changing avatars. I kind of wish I was an OS supporter, so I too could be spanked by Tiff

Thanks, OS supporters - what would I ever do without you and the government telling me so?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

I know. I can't believe I'm explaining this, but do you understand that "improbable" and "impossible" are mutually exclusive terms? You used them both to buttress your argument earlier, but they actually disagree with each other. When I pointed this out you spat the dummy and claimed they were basically the same thing.

Then to avoid answering my points you picked up on a minor semantic difference in something I'd written. Simple evasion which...

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.

...you're doing again.

I mean really, if you can't discuss this or answer my points it does kind of show the weakness of your arguments.

And as for losing, how old are you? And when is the investigation? I imagine they're swearing in Capn Bob as we speak...

Originally posted by tezzajw

Why has it taken 71 pages without ONE pilot putting his/her name for the alleged UA175 to be easy to control at +150 knots beyond its design limits?

Because they're all terrified of the government?

Or because no pilots actually care about Tiffany's pointless claims on an internet message board?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Or because no pilots actually care about Tiffany's pointless claims on an internet message board?

And that is the reason there will not be another investigation of 911 - basically not very many people care about it.

Originally posted by tezzajw
The OS supporters are doing a great service for me in this thread... they're keeping it alive.

And yet they also claim "No one cares".

You can pick out the most harmful topics to their theory just by obserrving how many of them come out of the woodwork to obfuscate the topic.

You don't get flak unless you're over the target.

Why has it taken 71 pages without ONE pilot putting his/her name for the alleged UA175 to be easy to control at +150 knots beyond its design limits?

Not even the ATS members here who blindly support the OS and also claim to be pilot wish to put their name behind such an absurd notion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Everyone who bothers can read the NTSB Report for themselves.

[quoteEgypt Air lost it's left engine, wing panels and horizontal stab skin, at 5 knots above its Vmo, while still in flight.

Wing panels and horizontal stab skin panels don't amount to "major in flight structural failure."

Now, I don't know about you, but numerous verified 757/767 Captain's I have sourced consider that a major in flight structural failure.

"numerous"?? Three, four, all the same cast of charaters, ad nauseum.

Engines separating from the airframe is "structural" and "major" of course...but aside from the CG change (minor and managable) biggest concern is the torn and ripped hydraulics, fuel lines (managable) and loss of one electrical supply source (also managable. All because of redundancy).

The case of Egypt Air 990 is overblown by the "P4T", and if you, yourself, had more experience of your own, rather than relying blindly on the claims of those "numerous" yahoos who feed you this disinfo, then you'd better understand.

Also, in case of Egypt Air, a pilot on board was intent on crashing it, despite the efforts of the Captain to prevent it. THAT is what resulted in the crash, NOT any inflight (and minor) damage incurred during the excessive speeds, and G forces.

I see the "P4T" script, the smae same same same post over and over and over again...that set piece of garbage that you have been tasked (hope they pay you well) to spam here still mentions thw China Airlines flight 006.

That other model Boeing suffered as much as five Gs....and high airspeeds....and did NOT crash, and was still flyable after some major tweaking of the airframe. Because those pilots were trying NOT to crash!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
... claims of those "numerous" yahoos who feed you this disinfo, then you'd better understand.

And yet I'm the only one here who is providing evidence for my argument. Let me know when you get some for yours. You been failing for more than 71 pages.

It must be real easy for you to personally attack these people from the comfort of your anonymity,
How noble of you.

It is clear you can only dream of accomplishing the things these people have done. At least they know you can plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known, unlike you.

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

Much more here -

http:/patriotsquestion911.com/pilots