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: 79
141
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



...I got a question, what is the max bank angle with the auto pilot...


30 degrees. But, it also depends on the mode. If in Heading Select, then it will follow the Bank Angle Limiter setting, up on the MCP. 'AUTO', 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25. This is a pic I have of the B-777 Mode Control Panel close-up...nearly identical, except that little black button ("HDG/TRK") above the HDG knob isn't on the 757/767:



It's a concentric knob arrangement; The outer knob, with white pointer arrow, is the Bank Limit Selector. "Above" it, smaller diameter (towards you) is the HDG Select knob, and the black center is the HDG Select push-button. (In case you aren't in HDG SEL mode already). Roll control has several modes.... can be HDG Hold --- and there's a button for that, and it is also a default mode in some circumstances --- Select, as mentioned, where the heading bug is in command, or the NAV tracking modes....lateral NAV ('LNAV') from the FMS computed flight plan information, or VOR Track and Localizer Track.

Now.....the Angle Limiter has priority only in HDG SEL and LNAV modes. (Though, you will see variations in the software...depends on the version. I've seen some A/Ps aggressively bank to "capture" the LNAV path. BUT, I think most have been updated by now, even the older airplanes).

However, especially with the localizer, some forethought needs to be employed to prevent the aggressive and rapid response, as the system attempts a last-second LOC capture in certain cases. Again, airline SOPs are designed towards minimizing such occurrences. An example is a large intercept angle, at a fairly high speed of closure, and when closer in to the Localizer, so that it's more sensitive. Not dangerous of course, but "sloppy" and uncomfortable for passengers. (Freight dogs don't have to care about that, I suppose....)

Anyway, with that background behind us...the A/P will overshoot the 25-degree "limit" in those instances of course capture, and rapid closure on the course at large angles.

BUT, max is 30 degrees at all times, when the A/P is engaged.

SO ( I think I know what you meant with this question, to educate the audience)...although I don't go into such detail each time (people's eyes might glaze over)...whenever I see claims of the 767s having been "pre-programmed" for the A/P to fly the attacks, I give the short answer as to why it isn't possible. Lot of good it does, sometimes though...




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



wheedwhacker - can you read what it says outside the Vd line?


Can I try? It says "structural failure". Now that we have passed that hurdle, can you please explain the nature of this failure and how it would make it a metaphysical absolute that neither Flight 175 nor Flight 11 would strike the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center?

You, for some reason, won't clear up that little mystery.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Credibility goes to the very soul of what you are speculating, Tiff. You said


I agree. And you have diminished any credibility that you may have had left due to the fact you cannot debate the facts and instead prefer character assassination.

trebor - I know you're very upset, that much is clear. The walls are closing in on you. The evidence is overwhelming. Truth will always prevail.

Now, let us know when you get some evidence for your absurd argument. You're not getting any more names to trash. I think you have enough already.

Click

Keep an eye on it as from what I have heard, another major update is coming from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, and then you can perhaps continue your character assassinations with a whole new large group of real and verified aviation professionals from the comfort of your anonymity.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



wheedwhacker - can you read what it says outside the Vd line?


Can I try? It says "structural failure".


Very good hooper - it only took you 79 pages to actually read it.


The reason it says "Structural Failure" (and not "Structural Failure - but don't worry, you can fly 150 knots faster") - has been cleared up here with data, precedent and Expert Witnesses - click on the links and learn.

After SEVENTY-NINE 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.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've contacted ALPA and alerted them to the fact that people are claiming their Officers are members of P4T.


Did you ask any of them if they think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150?


Did you ask any of them if a radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan?

Did you ask any of them if an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period. ?

Did you ask any of them what their thoughts were on a pod?

Did you ask any of them about a missile being fired at the Pentagon?

Did you ask any of them what their thoughts were regarding 757 damage at the Pentagon and that it should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes?

Did you tell them that it is impossible for professional airline pilots to fly a 767 into a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper at 450 knots?.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It's a concentric knob arrangement; The outer knob, with white pointer arrow, is the Bank Limit Selector. "Above" it, smaller diameter (towards you) is the HDG Select knob, and the black center is the HDG Select push-button. (In case you aren't in HDG SEL mode already). Roll control has several modes.... can be HDG Hold --- and there's a button for that, and it is also a default mode in some circumstances --- Select, as mentioned, where the heading bug is in command, or the NAV tracking modes....lateral NAV ('LNAV') from the FMS computed flight plan information, or VOR Track and Localizer Track.

Now.....the Angle Limiter has priority only in HDG SEL and LNAV modes. (Though, you will see variations in the software...depends on the version. I've seen some A/Ps aggressively bank to "capture" the LNAV path. BUT, I think most have been updated by now, even the older airplanes).

However, especially with the localizer, some forethought needs to be employed to prevent the aggressive and rapid response, as the system attempts a last-second LOC capture in certain cases. Again, airline SOPs are designed towards minimizing such occurrences. An example is a large intercept angle, at a fairly high speed of closure, and when closer in to the Localizer, so that it's more sensitive. Not dangerous of course, but "sloppy" and uncomfortable for passengers. (Freight dogs don't have to care about that, I suppose....)

Anyway, with that background behind us...the A/P will overshoot the 25-degree "limit" in those instances of course capture, and rapid closure on the course at large angles.


When describing the above - weedwhacker claims out of one side of his mouth that -

"(people's eyes might glaze over)...

But then claims it was "easy" for the "Hijackers" of which their most experienced hijacker was described as -


"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' www.capecodonline.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Source

He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here -

Click














posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've contacted ALPA and alerted them to the fact that people are claiming their Officers are members of P4T.


Did you ask any of them if they think it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150?


Did you ask any of them if a radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan?

Did you ask any of them if an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period. ?

Did you ask any of them what their thoughts were on a pod?

Did you ask any of them about a missile being fired at the Pentagon?

Did you ask any of them what their thoughts were regarding 757 damage at the Pentagon and that it should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes?

Did you tell them that it is impossible for professional airline pilots to fly a 767 into a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper at 450 knots?.


Did you ever provide a source for your cherry picked quotes above?

No, you didn't. Because if you had, people would once again understand why you have zero credibility.

And for perhaps the 50th time trebor, speeds reported were 510 knots, not 450.

Even hooper knows this now.

Wow.
edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Seriously, do you have any kind of innovative approach to posting that crap? You just keep upping the number, as if this was some kind of game that you are "winning" somehow by posting the same thing for 79 pages.

Why is it that almost every single source is from P4T? Why don't you have any other outside confirmation?



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Why is it that almost every single source is from P4T? Why don't you have any other outside confirmation?


not only did you not bother to click the links, but you didn't even bother to hover over them to check the sources.



You're wrong again as usual Varemia.

If you think the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, Boeing, the NTSB, et al, are all "crap", it looks like it's the train for you.




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' www.capecodonline.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Source

He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here -

Click


Well Tiff, I checked the sources on this one, and guess what? Only the cbs news link worked, and it said that the guy went to flight school with two other PENTAGON terrorists. The guy referred to there was the one who hit the pentagon, not the South Tower.

I fail to see the line of reasoning that you are using.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by trebor451
Credibility goes to the very soul of what you are speculating, Tiff. You said


I agree. And you have diminished any credibility that you may have had left due to the fact you cannot debate the facts and instead prefer character assassination.


"Character assassination"? You are the one who makes claims you can't back up, Tiff. If you can't name the ALPA officers who are members of P4T, then perhaps you shouldn't go around telling people they are. That is called lying.

Now.....are you going to tell us who the ALPA Officers are who are members of P4T?


trebor - I know you're very upset, that much is clear. The walls are closing in on you. The evidence is overwhelming. Truth will always prevail.


lol...yeah, upset. Walls closing in. I have P4T at my heels. I am terrified.


Now, let us know when you get some evidence for your absurd argument. You're not getting any more names to trash. I think you have enough already.


My "absurd argument" is merely throwing your words back at you. You claimed that many officers of ALPA are members of P4T. Who are they? Certainly not any of teh current 2010 ALPA officers, we've a;lready proven that. If you can't name any, retract your lie.


Click

Keep an eye on it as from what I have heard, another major update is coming from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, and then you can perhaps continue your character assassinations with a whole new large group of real and verified aviation professionals from the comfort of your anonymity.


Laugh my freaking ass off. You going to sign on to more lawsuits like April Gallop's? You going to hang out on more internet discussion boards like ATS? You goign to make more claims like "Many ALPA officers are members of P4T"? Perhaps you'll claim that many congressmen are members of P4T? Many FAA officers are members of P4T? Many what? You haven't done squat with what you have - what makes you think you'll get anywhere with more aeronautical morons who claim you cannot fly a 767 into a 1,200 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper?
edit on 9-11-2010 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Well Tiff, I checked the sources on this one, and guess what? Only the cbs news link worked, and it said that the guy went to flight school with two other PENTAGON terrorists. The guy referred to there was the one who hit the pentagon, not the South Tower.


Yes, the tags are getting a bit mangled in the translation. Click "quote" and you can see the full source to copy/paste. Or just paste the quote into google.

Or, you can just read the full sources here from which they originally came. It's an excellent piece of research. Very well sourced.

Flight 77 Maneuver/hanjour Flying Skills Debunked!



I fail to see the line of reasoning that you are using.


You fail to understand a lot of things, including original sources, basic V-G diagrams, and speeds reported. Why should this be any different?



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Now.....are you goign[sic] to tell us who the ALPA Officers are who are members of P4T?


I already gave you one when you claimed there was "Not one - ever".

You want more? Go Fish.

(You also need to learn the structure of ALPA)

Anytime you wish to discuss the topic and data, let us know trebor, you've been failing for 79 pages.

edit: By the way trebor - Not only are there past and present Officers and Members of ALPA - current core members of P4T, but so are APA, SWAPA, Teamsters, USAPA, the list goes on....

edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo, noted



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Flight 77 Maneuver/hanjour Flying Skills Debunked!


Loose Change Forum....now THERE'S a credible source. Why don't you just point someone back to P4T and eliminate the middle man? Save time and trons and would get across the same biased results.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Flight 77 Maneuver/hanjour Flying Skills Debunked!


Loose Change Forum....now THERE'S a credible source. Why don't you just point someone back to P4T and eliminate the middle man? Save time and trons and would get across the same biased results.


Once again you demonstrate your lack of credibility.

Anyone who clicks the links will see the sources of the quotes attributed to CBS, Fox, CNN, Newsday, Boston Globe, 9/11 Commission Report... the list goes on.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Wait, I thought we were "discussing" the "impossible" speed of UA175?
edit on 9-11-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe
Wait, I thought we were "discussing" the "impossible" speed of UA175?
edit on 9-11-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)


We were, but trebor doesn't have the knowledge to discuss the data, so he instead elects to fish for more names so he can apply the only debate style he knows, character assassination.

roboe,

Have you figured out how the speeds were reported yet?

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Reply to TiffanyInLA

I'm going to take out all of the hidden urls here and reveal just how much Tiff relies on P4T for almost (key word!) all her information.

These three are all posts on the P4T forum, and are fairly unsourced. One leads to a pentagon bout where they calculated what they thought was the best route, and then concluded that the plane couldn't fly their route.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

This one shows the speeds according to radar, as well as elevation for the last couple minutes of both tower-hitting planes flights.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

This one re-references itself many times. Two of the links are P4T, and two of the other sources are fringe sites. The rest is videos by/about (unsure) the P4T guys.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This one shows the limits that the part designers placed on the material (not necessarily the most they can stand)
rgl.faa.gov...$FILE/A1NM.pdf

Same thing, but with generic Vd graph.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nothing specific here. Just a video in that post on P4T that shows a series of tests performed on different planes in wind tunnel testing. It says nothing about tunnel testing on a 767, and what wind speed caused it to finally break apart.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

A repeat of what P4T has calculated the aircraft speeds to be.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

This doesn't even need to really be there. It's not sourced really.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This plane was spiraling out of control, and only lost a part of its wing after regaining control and landing.
en.wikipedia.org...

Practically a pointless post. It talks about how it should be impossible/too difficult to pilot a plane into a building, and then it starts the ridiculous dart metaphor. The point about the ground and how pilots land without visibility is outside my knowledge.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This one is about a passenger plane that broke the sound barrier by going into a dive. Strange, I remember "something" about the second plane going into a steady descent/ kind of like a dive in terms of being able to pick up speed with the help of gravity.
www.dc8.org...

A repost again of the post that relinked to copies of itself and had two videos about/by (unsure) a couple guys of P4T.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is about questioning the commission report, completely unrelated to the impact of the towers and the possibility of a 767 being able to do it.
patriotsquestion911.com...

There was nothing blind about it. It was this man's opinion on the matter, apparently as a pilot. I can't confirm or deny that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Or, you can just read the full sources here from which they originally came. It's an excellent piece of research. Very well sourced.

Flight 77 Maneuver/hanjour Flying Skills Debunked!

You fail to understand a lot of things, including original sources, basic V-G diagrams, and speeds reported. Why should this be any different?


Now, see, the guy flew the plane with 2 other guys. The information you've found is that he couldn't do it by himself. That's the truth.




top topics



 
141
<< 76  77  78    80  81  82 >>

log in

join