9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

....to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error....

Ever going to explain this? How do you know what the target was to within 25'?

Read and learn -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument, you've been failing for 76 pages.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Forgot to mention, as you read Stanish's letter, you see also references to the "opinons" of the Retired General (?) Stubblebine, and the BYU (ex) professor Steven Jones.

Plenty of ATS bandwidth has been devoted to Jones, and his poor scientific method, and lack of peer-review.

Stubblebine? Well, he served in the armed forces of our nation, and deserves respect for that. But, as to the rest?? Well.....my grandfather suffered from senile demensia, too. Tragic thing.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Forgot to mention, as you read Stanish's letter, you see also references to the "opinons" of the Retired General (?) Stubblebine, and the BYU (ex) professor Steven Jones.

Plenty of ATS bandwidth has been devoted to Jones, and his poor scientific method, and lack of peer-review.

Stubblebine? Well, he served in the armed forces of our nation, and deserves respect for that. But, as to the rest?? Well.....my grandfather suffered from senile demensia, too. Tragic thing.....

Your continuous personal attacks from the comfort of your anonymity speaks volumes of your character.

Second time asked weedwhacker -

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Why?

In the real world, it's none of the above anyway. The speed in the data block is supplied by the transponder (see Aeroperu Flight 603).

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Why?

In the real world, it's none of the above anyway. The speed in the data block is supplied by the transponder (see Aeroperu Flight 603).

So, ATC does not assign speeds based on ASR radar?

You are wrong.

Also, Mode C does not transmit speed.

weedwhacker, do you agree with roboe above?



Google Mode C.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Yawn.

If the speed block worked independent of the transponders, care to explain why we don't have any speed data for UAL175?

Oh, and since I remember, what will PfffffT be doing now that one of their members is set to join one of the co-conspirators?

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Yawn.

If the speed block worked independent of the transponders, care to explain why we don't have any speed data for UAL175?

We don't have any speed data for "UA175"?

It's clear you also didn't bother to read this thread.

Let me help you.

NTSB Radar Speed Study

Again Roboe, speed data does not come directly from a transponder.

It is clear you don't know how ATC assigns a speed.

Read the above NTSB document to learn something.

Oh, and since I remember, what will PfffffT be doing now that one of their members is set to join one of the co-conspirators?

Got a source? I haven't any idea what you are talking about. But it is clear you wish to derail the topic since it is clear you do not understand the data and facts.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I'm not sure why you're so keen to drag others over the coals for not answering your pointless questions. Especially when you routinely avoid answering about half the questions aimed at you.

I'll tell you what, I'll make a prediction.

Even if this thread goes to 200 pages this extraordinary - and pointless - notion will still have made absolutely no impact at all on the world at large.

And I'm also fascinated by your assertion that many of ALPA's Officers are members of P4T. Which ones?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm not sure why you're so keen to drag others over the coals for not answering your pointless questions.

So it appears you too would rather an "MIT professor" who is unable to calculate a simple percentage, assign speeds for your aircraft (since his "calculations" are more in line with your blind support of the OS), rather than ATC with ASR radar.

Good luck with that.

Especially when you routinely avoid answering about half the questions aimed at you.

I apologize if I missed some, as I will admit, it is hard to keep up with all the OS supporters who literally flock to - and dog-pile on.... a topic which you people claim "No one cares".



Feel free to post the questions again.

I suppose you don't find it odd that none of the so-called claimed "pilots" here who admittedly blindly support the OS, refuse to answer the questions I posed repeatedly?

Readers will decide I suppose.

I'll tell you what, I'll make a prediction.

Even if this thread goes to 200 pages this extraordinary - and pointless - notion will still have made absolutely no impact at all on the world at large.

And yet these lists grow -

Click

And I'm also fascinated by your assertion that many of ALPA's Officers are members of P4T. Which ones?

Click the link above and Go Fish.

After 76 pages we have certainly made progress. Might have made more if Tiffany would ever give a straight answer to anything, but there you go.

So, where are we ? Tiffany did say she didn't claim that AA 11 or UA 175 were modified or substituted but a little later qualified that by saying she didn't have any proof.

Speeds for the jets impacting the Towers seem to be anything between 385 and 430 knots for AA 11 and 438 and 510 knots for UA 175.

Tiffany has posted a VG diagram which she insists means if you step outside the " caution " area the plane will fall to bits.

Everything I have seen tends to indicate that a modern jetliner is very unlikely to fall to bits this side of the sound barrier unless subjected to stupendous g's.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, perhaps we should accept that whatever AA 11 and UA 175 did, they did as basic Boeing 767's as they are generally taken for.

reply to post by Alfie1


Now try to actually review the evidence -

After SEVENTY-SIX 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 - To those who blindly support whatever their govt tells them -


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 roboe

Common knowledge, not to mention he's quite open about it.

He said, she said, common knowledge, thanks.

If he is so open about his disinformation and outright lies, why do you support his, nonsense, when he has been exposed as a fraud? Yeah, that’s denying ignorance!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Tiffany, whenever you put up your flak screen ,as above, I know you are just temporarily stumped and need to re-group. That's ok, I can imagine it's tough defending the indefensible.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

So it appears you too would rather an "MIT professor" who is unable to calculate a simple percentage, assign speeds for your aircraft (since his "calculations" are more in line with your blind support of the OS), rather than ATC with ASR radar.

Good luck with that.

Where have I said that? It's ridiculous to even suggest that one has to make a choice.

You favour the radar speed over his estimate. Why? And try to do this without smearing him - actually attempt to show why his calculation is wrong.

Especially when you routinely avoid answering about half the questions aimed at you.

I apologize if I missed some, as I will admit, it is hard to keep up with all the OS supporters who literally flock to - and dog-pile on.... a topic which you people claim "No one cares".

Feel free to post the questions again.

You haven't "missed some". You've routinely refused to answer, ignored perfectly reasonable questions or pretended that you don't have to address them, even though they're critical to your ideas. Several times, when you've found the going particularly tough, you've pretended that you don't even have to read someone's queries because of some perceived error or insult they've aimed at you.

I suppose you don't find it odd that none of the so-called claimed "pilots" here who admittedly blindly support the OS, refuse to answer the questions I posed repeatedly?

I don't find it odd at all, because every effort has been made to accommodate your questions. But you purposely post queries that are abstruse or based on fraudulent premises. Most notably you seem to require an extraordinarily rare event to have happened dozens of times, or it apparently can't be true. Also notable is your insistence (inferring from what is admittedly extremely shaky logic) that planes apparently break at an absolutely uniform point.

You also make sure at every opportunity to find something which disqualifies perfectly reasonable answers and refuse to even contemplate the implications of your ideas.

Click the link above and Go Fish.[

None of ALPA's Officers are listed in that link.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You favour the radar speed over his estimate. Why?

Because such radar is used daily to assign speeds to aircraft in busy terminal areas.

Your "MIT professor" came up with a speed which is almost a 75 knots difference than the NTSB based on ASR radar.

If ASR radar had such a large margin for error, aircraft would be crashing into each other daily..

Again Tricky, why do you evade these questions?

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

ATC with ASR Radar?

FEMA?

NIST?

or...

An "MIT professor" who doesn't seem to be able to calculate a proper percentage, nor is familiar with the NTSB?

And try to do this without smearing him - actually attempt to show why his calculation is wrong.

438 is what percent of 510?

Then click here and read.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not a "smear" Tricky, It's fact. The "MIT professor" doesn't have a clue.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

So I shouldn't believe an anonymous person the internet (Mike at 911 myths) because an anonymous person on the internet (you) says so?

You can believe in anything you want that your choice, whatever floats your boat.
I just have a problem with Mike on 911myths who enjoys spreading lies. I see why so many ignorant people still support the OS proven lies, because they have not done their research, and they too believe in those conspiracy websites with snake oil salesman. See, the door swings both ways.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Especially considering many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Who are they? I ask because none of the current ALPA officers are listed in your list of members NOR are any of the ALPA officers listed in the "Patriots" Question 9/11 web page.

None. Not a one.

So, you are either telling a falsehood or your list is not up to date. If the list is not up to date, it shows that this club is just what it has been characterized as - a silly little insignificant collection of Bush-hating whack jobs who believe aliens live on the moon, a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, UA 175 had a "pod" attached to its underbelly and holograms are what hit the WTC. If you are not telling the truth and "...many of the Officers of ALPA are..." NOT members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, well, that is just about par for your course, as well.

It would be easy enough to check. A copy of the original post claiming "many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth" can be emailed to ALPA, with the simple statement/question "This club is claiming that "...many of the Officers of ALPA..." are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" claims the following (annotated list of the P4T claims, posted here before). None of your current officers, as posted on your "Who We Are/Officers' Bios" webpage appear on the Pilots for 9/11 Truth current list of members. The credibility of this club is such that it is believed this claim of ""...many of the Officers of ALPA are members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is not true. Comments?"

I suppose there is one more option - Tiffany has a different list of ALPA officers.

In any event, there are no current ALPA officers listed in the P4T membership list, making Tiffany's statement untrue.

I concurr. Definately a conspiracy!

Here's one I found in a short quick search -

Captain Rusty Aimer

Served as Member of the Board of Directors, Master Executive Council, and Chairman of the Local Scheduling Committee of the 66,00[0] member Airline Pilots Association.

Once again trebor, let us know when you wish to debate the topic and the data.

As usual, your concentration is focused on character assassination. It's not working.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

If ASR radar had such a large margin for error, aircraft would be crashing into each other daily..

Again Tricky, why do you evade these questions?

Which would you rather have assigning speeds for your approach?

I'll indulge you and answer your question, even though it's a patently silly one.

You're asking me to decide which I would prefer during a descent, but the calculated estimate is obviously not used in that situation. It's an attempt after the fact to assign a value to something unknown.

In fact, during my putative descent I wouldn't in almost any circumstances be relying solely on ASR either. So the correct question is which of these speeds do I consider to be most accurate. And the answer is that I don't know, because I have no idea what the margin for error is on ASR and it's some time since I've evaluated the source for it. Second, I haven't looked in detail at the other source either.

If you want an answer to your actual question, of how would I want my speed calculated - by a man with a notepad or a laptop trying to do rapid calculations while a plane screamed towards a runway, or by a radar, I suppose I'd take the latter. But I'd point out that the professor presumably had the luxury of time and empirical evidence in making his judgements.

Now let me ask you a question.

Do you think it more likely that

- the government, risking terrible consequences if they were found out, employed unscrupulous (and subsequently silent) people to modify aeroplanes so that they could fly a bit faster into the WTC, even though the advantages of the extra speed are completely unclear and such a process would be an organisational nightmare

- the reported speed is incorrect, for whatever reason

?