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: 86
141
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Oh...so, basically in all that, your argument is that the mass of the Boeing 767 impacting the WTC Tower structure is not going to cause it to topple over?

Well, agreed, then. It is correct that the force directed at the building would not dislodge it, nor "tip" it over.

What IS the point, though, is the damage inflicted, at point of impact. And whether once inflicted (and exacerbated by the fires, and uneven temperatures and thus uneven expansion and resulting weakening of load-bearing capacity) .... whether after all of that, the remaining static weight of the structure above the impact zone could remain supported. Obviously, it did not.




posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, 4nsicphd has undercalculated by a factor of 1000. His 2 sticks of dynamite should be 2000 and that is without giving any consideration to approx 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weed, 4nsicphd has undercalculated by a factor of 1000. His 2 sticks of dynamite should be 2000 and that is without giving any consideration to approx 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.



You are absolutely correct. I gave the problem to my Intro Physics class as homework on Homecoming weekend and accepted the answer from the prettiest woman in the class, and not the smartest. Apparently, her perfect, shiny blond hair got in her way when looking at the exponential. Obviously, it got in my way, too. As punishment, she gets to clean the bugs off my MX2 (For an example, see www.airplane-pictures.net...). It isn't a 767 but it sure will handle more gs. By the way, it's 350 horsepower so that is 261,100 joules/second.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


its good to see on this board that people admit when they are wrong, i just wonder when Tiff will come along and spam and misconstrued the information given here today. also i never knew that teaching would allow you to have so much disposable income for an mx2, very nice 4nsicphd how many hours you have under your belt ?

Wee Mad
edit on 14/11/2010 by weemadmental because: i am worth it



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Now, why does your airplane look so much like Patty Wagstaff's Extra 300??

Oh, because it's just another version!! Teaching at University level must be profitable, ehh??



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Well, I see all our 'friends' who blindly support the OS are having a good weekend on ATS discussing a topic which is "unpopular" and "no one cares".


Thought I'd drop in to update the page.


After EIGHTY-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 and 86 pages.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend all!



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
See i told you, 8 minutes, getting better in your old age there Tiff,

This is real research tiff, if you look over the last few posts you might learn something about physics and where errors can be made, even by teachers at university's, and they are still man enough to admit to their errors, can i ask that you stop spamming the boards with your same tales, as i have stated before you will be lucky to find a pilot to say that they have taken a commercial airliner to vmo+150kts, as they will lose their licence, which is a lot more precious that to prove a point with a sheep from the p4t league

Wee Mad
edit on 14/11/2010 by weemadmental because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


its good to see on this board that people admit when they are wrong, i just wonder when Tiff will come along and spam and misconstrued the information given here today. also i never knew that teaching would allow you to have so much disposable income for an mx2, very nice 4nsicphd how many hours you have under your belt ?

Wee Mad
edit on 14/11/2010 by weemadmental because: i am worth it


I only began teaching after getting hurt on a horse - actually, not on, but sort of violently off. I then retired from practicing law and went back to school. The mx is just the most recent of play airplanes, starting with a DHC-1 Chipmunk, then an 8KCAB Decathlon, an S1T Pitts, then Extra. I have a total of a little over 10,000 hours total time. By the way, the MX in the pic is not mine. I think it's Alex McClean's old one. I heard he just ordered a new MXS for Red Bull races, which are now canceled for the rest of this year and all of 2011.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weemadmental
This is real research tiff, if you look over the last few posts you might learn something about physics and where errors can be made, even by teachers at university's,


If you are saying that there are errors in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, The Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet, the NASA research listed, etc etc, - you have failed to point out such errors in over 86 pages.

The only errors which have been made are on the part of those who blindly support the OS.

For example, we are STILL waiting for a reliable source for the claims that China Air 006 went Supersonic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you get some evidence for your argument and/or notify the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics et al that they are in error.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 



I gave the problem to my Intro Physics class as homework on Homecoming weekend and accepted the answer from the prettiest woman in the class, and not the smartest. Apparently, her perfect, shiny blond hair got in her way when looking at the exponential.


It doesn't appear as if "Tiffany" has 'shiny blond hair'??



SO, did you change that poor girl's grade yet???



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Just came across this video which makes some interesting points re : UA 175 and speed :-

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


Just came across this video which makes some interesting points re : UA 175 and speed :-

www.youtube.com...



That video is from 2007 as is based around NPT produced by a guy without any aviation experience, nor data.

Now watch one from 2010 with real and verified United and American Airlines 757/767 Captain's and Aeronautical Engineers analyzing actual data.

Click



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Good video. Predictably, the claim of "no aviation experiencee" gets spewed....ironic, pot/kettle stuff, eh?

One thing, before THIS gets pointed out, too. The narrator does make on teeny error, regarding the "Vd" and what it means....he misspeaks and says the "V" means "vertical". Minor error, but thought I'd put it out first, before "you-know-who-that-shall-not-be-named"...



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Good video. Predictably, the claim of "no aviation experiencee"[sic] gets spewed....ironic, pot/kettle stuff, eh?


Are you saying that Captain's Rusty Aimer, Ralph Kolstad, Jeff Latas and Rob Balsamo don't have any aviation experience?

Once again you demonstrate that you are willing to lie through your teeth to suit your agenda.

Unfortunately for you, your lies are so blatant that it only diminishes your credibility, if you had any left.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Sorry to drop in here but due to the rules I'm still considered a newbie and can't post new threads. Maybe some or most of you have seen this eyewitness that appeared on FOX5 News on September 11, 2001 at around 4:38: The so called "Saudi Arabian pilot Fake eyewitness", Aziz Elihallan.
As I've just seen this remarkable video, I have many questions: He say's that at around 9:08 or 9:15 he was just "hitting the 110 south...actually north," and then goes on to describe in intricate detail how he saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. But the official time of impact is given as somewhere between 9:30 and 9:40. And please correct me if I'm wrong as I've never been on any Washington roads but looking at a map, the "110" highway is on the east side of the Pentagon and the impact is reported as to have been on the west side of the building. Can anyone elaborate on this?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TiffanyInLA
 


I appreciate that the video I posted a link to is primarily aimed at NPT but it does also demolish Joseph Keith, who I believe you have prayed in aid, and it makes clear that a Boeing 767 has a VD of 483 mph which is only 21 % less than maximum estimated impact speed for UA 175.

The suggestion being that anticipated safety margin.would be far greater than 21 %.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Good video. Predictably, the claim of "no aviation experiencee" gets spewed....ironic, pot/kettle stuff, eh?

One thing, before THIS gets pointed out, too. The narrator does make on teeny error, regarding the "Vd" and what it means....he misspeaks and says the "V" means "vertical". Minor error, but thought I'd put it out first, before "you-know-who-that-shall-not-be-named"...


Thanks Weed but what does Vd stand for ? I googled it and you can imagine what I came up with !



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I appreciate that the video I posted a link to is primarily aimed at NPT but it does also demolish Joseph Keith, who I believe you have prayed in aid,



Wrong - I see you still fail to read through the evidence.


and it makes clear that a Boeing 767 has a VD of 483 mph which is only 21 % less than maximum estimated impact speed for UA 175.


since it's clear you refuse to click through the evidence, let me copy'paste it for you (and people wonder why I need to repeat myself).

JetStream -


maybe I am not being clear enough for some to understand.

An airplane-any airplane-is a balance of forces. Lift Drag thrust and gravity. The controlability of the airplane is designed within a certain speed range and weight range.

If you exceed airspeed-and at low altitude this is the major limitation on the airframe, you run out of pitch authority to keep the nose down.
The horizontal stabilizer of an airplane-the tail mounted wings- have up and down limits. these limits are mechanical stops.


4nsicphd -


The design load limit is set at a figure such that up to 150% of the design load limit (the ultimate load limit) will not result in permanent deformation or failure. There is no such safety margin for the speed limitations set out in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


The suggestion being that anticipated safety margin.would be far greater than 21 %.



See bold above and precedent data under the evidence listed.
edit on 14-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Thanks Weed but what does Vd stand for ? I googled it and you can imagine what I came up with !


If you read through the evidence, specifically for the Illustrate Guide To Aerodynamics, you would already know.

Why have you failed to review the evidence list and only attempt to find information for your bias/agenda?

Either way -

Click

This may help you as well -


edit on 14-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: added V-G



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Max velocity - dive. Aviation lexicons are full of similar shorthand designations. There are a host of them that are rather arcane, and pilots in day-to-day operations only use a few, in real life. Airline pilots a few more than light airplane pilots. Some are specific to light airplanes, and not used in large jets, and vice-versa.

"velocity", not vertical. A slip of the tongue and a cog in the brain, likely, as the narrator made his video.
edit on 14 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join