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: 80
141
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.


Hey Tiff! I'm not the one going around in this thread claiming that "many" of the Airline Pilots Association officers are members of P4T...YOU are. That sort of lie simply cannot be left by itself. You have been asked to prove that statement true over a half dozen times and you refuse to. It has been proven that of the ALPA officers listed on their web site, not a single one is a member of P4T. We simply want proof of the veracity of Tiff's statement, which she refuses to provide.

I brought her canard up with the ATS mods but it seems they have other fish to fry than worry about blatant lying in these posts.

As far as "character assassination", Tiff is the only "woman" I know who would call using someone's own words as some form of "character assassination". Looks like "she" doesn't have the power of her own convictions - not to mentioning wishing to put distance between "herself" and the other P4T member's beliefs.

She selectively quotes those P4T members all the time in this threat - choosing not to mention WIttenberg's belief that a cruise missle hit the Pentagon or Stanish's belief that a pod was loaded up on to UA 175's underbelly or JohN Lear's moon bases or Muga's "split second" to switch a transponser into a hijack mode or "Capt" Bob Balsamo's claim that it took 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon.

Credibility? Uh-huh.




posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
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...


The above are the claims being argued.


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 is an NTSB document hosted on the Pilots For 9/11 Truth server.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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 is a link to numerous videos and interviews with verified Pilots who discuss the nature of the attacks.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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


This is the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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


This is a link to the V-G diagram as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics - page 151.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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...


This is a video of NASA wind tunnel tests showing that flutter is a very serious issue at excessive airspeed for a given airframe, and the reason manufacturers set limits for their aircraft through wind tunnel and flight testing.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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


With sources to check P4T calculations -

[1] www.luizmonteiro.com..., www.csgnetwork.com... (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] www.aerospaceweb.org...



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


This demonstrates precedent that aircraft cannot reach anywhere near Vmo+150 without suffering in flight structural failure and loss of control for 10's of thousands of feet.


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


This demonstrates precedent that aircraft cannot reach anywhere near Vmo+150 without suffering in flight structural failure and loss of control for 10's of thousands of feet.


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...


Math provided to put into perspective the WTC attack as compared to a dart board bull-seye.

A 767 is to the WTC as a dart is to the size of this bull-seye.




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...


This demonstrates that the aircraft was modified to achieve such speeds exceeding manufacturer's set limits.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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...


Several real and verified pilots interviewed.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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...


This is a long growing list of verified real experts who question 9/11.

"Crap" - according to Varemia.


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...


This is the only "evidence" that has been provided by those who blindly support the OS.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Your use of rhetoric astounds me. I KNEW you would reference my use of the word "crap" to somehow make my opinion stop mattering. Bad form at best, Tiffany. I would expect someone of sound intellect to actually argue a point rather than bash another user with character assassination... oh, wait, those are your words. My bad!

Literally, you didn't offer anything with your post. You just repeated yourself and then attacked my character.
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: added a line


Especially since I didn't say the info was crap. I just meant that it doesn't prove your point, and that most of it was unrelated or not meaningful in figuring out the answer to whether or not it is possible for a Boeing 767 to reach such speeds and survive before impacting.
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: added another line



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Your use of rhetoric astounds me. I KNEW you would reference my use of the word "crap" to somehow make my opinion stop mattering.


Originally posted by Varemia
"Seriously, do you have any kind of innovative approach to posting that crap?"

I guess we just learned why I keep posting that "crap".

It is known as evidence for my argument. Let us know when you get some for yours. You've been failing for 80 pages.

But I will say this, at least you are the first to actually review the data in more than 80 pages among those who blindly support the OS, so good for you Varemia!

With that said, you still fail to understand it.



. I would expect someone of sound intellect to actually argue a point rather than bash another user with character assassination...


How come you don't direct such words toward the only person (trebor - "robert" spelled backwards due to his obsession with Robert Balsamo)) who has exclusively used character assassination for over 80 pages? Hmmm....



Literally, you didn't offer anything with your post.


I guess readers will decide.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument. You've been failing for over 80 pages.
edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



This demonstrates precedent that aircraft cannot reach anywhere near Vmo+150 without suffering in flight structural failure and loss of control for 10's of thousands of feet.


Are you at all familiar with the terms "cause and effect" and "suicide bomber"?

The plane exceeded its vmvmvmo, recovered and landed. It was controlled and reached its target despite suffering "in flight damage".

Just like 11 and 175 on 9/11.

That's pretty much the end of this little story.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Are you actually trying to find the answer to this question conclusively, or have you just made up your mind and feel this is a popularity contest?

I refuse to sit back and watch this thread just be bickering back and forth. I want serious discussions. No repeating the same copy-pasted information unless it directly pertains to your argument. You cannot just make a post and call it all the evidence, posting it whenever someone asks a question. I want actual thought to take place here.

Also, will you answer the simple question about your remark about how many people in ALPA are part of P4T, or will you retract your comment.

I will right now respectfully retract my comment about your post being "crap." I just really want more than the repetitive "I'm right" attitude you are holding over this thread, seemingly for popularity's sake.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



This demonstrates precedent that aircraft cannot reach anywhere near Vmo+150 without suffering in flight structural failure and loss of control for 10's of thousands of feet.


Are you at all familiar with the terms "cause and effect" and "suicide bomber"?

The plane exceeded its vmvmvmo, recovered and landed. It was controlled and reached its target despite suffering "in flight damage".

Just like 11 and 175 on 9/11.

That's pretty much the end of this little story.


You need to read it again hooper.

Here, let me see if I can put this in the most basic terms I can offer -

The aircraft was not able to reach Vmo+150. It suffered in flight structural failure well below Vmo+150. It was out-of-control for 10's of thousands of feet.

This is known as precedent.

Let us know when you find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by more than 150 knots, remained controllable/stable, and held together.

You have failed for more than 80 pages and all evidence provided conflicts with your absurd theory.
edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
You need to read it again hooper.

Here, let me see if I can put this in the oist basic terms I can offer -

The aircraft was not able to reach Vmo+150. It suffered in flight structural failure well below Vmo+150. It was out-of-control for 10's of thousands of feet.

This is known as precedent.

Let us know when you find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by more than 150 knots, remained controllable/stable, and held together.

You have failed for more than 80 pages and all evidence provided conflicts with your absurd theory.
edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo


I read it. The plane lost control BEFORE reaching high speeds. The spiraling was not caused by the breaching of Vmo. And subsequently, it probably withstood a lot more turbulence in its attempts to regain control.

Plus, there is no failing or winning here! This isn't a game!
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: added an exclamatory



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Let us know when you find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by more than 150 knots, remained controllable/stable, and held together.


How about something more relevant to 9/11 since that is basically the topic here in this forum, try:

Find a passenger plane that went 510 knots for a few seconds, in a line without disintergrating and hit the side of one of the largest buildings in the world.

Lets try and keep it topical.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
And subsequently, it probably withstood a lot more turbulence in its attempts to regain control.


Well, at least you're consistent. Your theory is based on nothing but pure speculation.

The rest of us will stick to data and facts.

Here they are again for those who missed it due to the obfuscation brigade of those who blindly support the OS -

We are now on page EIGHTY (30 past the initial prediction, and only 20 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 - 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 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 



Let us know when you find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by more than 150 knots, remained controllable/stable, and held together.


How about something more relevant to 9/11 since that is basically the topic here in this forum, try:

Find a passenger plane that went 510 knots for a few seconds, in a line without disintergrating[sic] and hit the side of one of the largest buildings in the world.

Lets try and keep it topical.



That's easy. if the NTSB speeds are correct, it was the aircraft which hit the South Tower.

Now please prove to us it was a standard 767 with a Vmo of 360 knots.

All evidence provided, conflicts with such a notion.


(By the way, it was much more than a "few seconds". Read the NTSB document)
edit on 9-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
And there she goes posting the same thing AGAIN. And she still refers to it as a score, as if this is a big game to her, seeing how long she can make the thread go with no comprehensive answering of people's questions of explaining her points.

She tells me that I don't know the facts of the matter when I disagree. Then she doesn't explain the what the facts are with a source!

She claims others are trying to assassinate her character, and then she attacks other people posts in a rhetorical fashion to make it seem like they are saying something they aren't!

She continuously posts the same bit again and again and again... Why is anyone even responding to her anymore?



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Now please prove to us it was a standard 767 with a Vmo of 360 knots.


You're right. It fluctuated around 500-520 Knots for a couple minutes. Anyway, here's a little something:
www.benfrank.net...

You used a disinformation tactic.
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
And there she goes posting the same thing AGAIN. And she still refers to it as a score, as if this is a big game to her, seeing how long she can make the thread go with no comprehensive answering of people's questions of explaining her points.

She tells me that I don't know the facts of the matter when I disagree. Then she doesn't explain the what the facts are with a source!



Wow, ummm... okay.

Click

If the wording upsets you, I can change "score" to "list of evidence".

"After 80 pages, the list of evidence remains - "

Would that make you feel better?



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


Also, will you answer the simple question about your remark about how many people in ALPA are part of P4T, or will you retract your comment.


I very much doubt she'll do either. Tiffany is not in the habit of answering questions which she finds difficult. She prefers to disappear for a while and return with a thick wodge of - as you have perceptively noticed - flawed evidence and pretend she "missed" your query.

Along the way she'll toss in the only real point she has - which is basically just an argument from authority. Obviously she ignores the fact that the reasons that no aviation officials are on this thread attacking her position are

- her ideas are self-evidently absurd
- nobody of any importance cares about a wacko theory on a fringe message board

It's like someone starting a thread claiming the first world war didn't happen and then demanding you get historians to publicly disagree, or else they're right. Nonsensical.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Varemia
And there she goes posting the same thing AGAIN. And she still refers to it as a score, as if this is a big game to her, seeing how long she can make the thread go with no comprehensive answering of people's questions of explaining her points.

She tells me that I don't know the facts of the matter when I disagree. Then she doesn't explain the what the facts are with a source!



Wow, ummm... okay.

Click

If the wording upsets you, I can change "score" to "list of evidence".

"After 80 pages, the list of evidence remains - "

Would that make you feel better?



It would make me feel better if you stopped copying and pasting the same response every time someone wants evidence. Explain within the specific evidence where the answer lies. That might make people understand you better and see your points.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

She continuously posts the same bit again and again and again... Why is anyone even responding to her anymore?


I think it's got something to do with enjoying mocking the afflicted, like a kid frying ants with a magnifying glass. And as such you're absolutely right, one should stop.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia


You used a disinformation tactic.
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo



So, you claim it is "impossible" to prove if the aircraft used on 9/11 were standard aircraft?

Perhaps it is for you and me, especially when the FBI refuses to identify the aircraft.

But the difference between you and me is that you blindly support what they tell you, I want answers as there is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with their story.

I'm not alone and the list is growing.

Click



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Varemia


You used a disinformation tactic.
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: typo



So, you claim it is "impossible" to prove if the aircraft used on 9/11 were standard aircraft?

Perhaps it is for you and me, especially when the FBI refuses to identify the aircraft.

But the difference between you and me is that you blindly support what they tell you, I want answers as there is a growing mountain of evidence which conflicts with their story.

I'm not alone and the list is growing.

Click


We're not talking about that. We're talking about the possibility of an airliner exceeding its Vmo and hitting the tower. That's the main premise of your argument.

And for the record, I do not BLINDLY support anything. That's a tactic used by truthers to discredit another person's opinion.
edit on 9-11-2010 by Varemia because: line



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
It would make me feel better if you stopped copying and pasting the same response every time someone wants evidence. Explain within the specific evidence where the answer lies. That might make people understand you better and see your points.


I will post it on every single page at least once due to the fact a textbook tactic of those who blindly support the OS, is to bury the evidence and obfuscate the thread.

It was predicted long ago.

Click

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument. You've been failing for over 80 pages.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join