It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 87
141
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 04:58 PM

Correct me if I am wrong but we seem to be at a point where an acceptable dive velocity for a Boeing 767 is 483 mph at any altitude below 18,000 ft.

You have pointed out that a safety factor of 150 % is built in so wouldn't that indicate a safe dive speed up to 724 mph ?

We are getting in to the sound barrier region here but no-one has suggested that. Just perhaps 580 mph..

Your repeated question about a pilot flying 150 over VMO is meaningless because no pilot wanting to keep his job is likely to admit to that. Cutting out all the cr*p, isn't it the case that UA 175 was pushing it as regards speed but, what the hell, it was a one way trip.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1
Correct me if I am wrong but we seem to be at a point where an acceptable dive velocity for a Boeing 767 is 483 mph at any altitude below 18,000 ft.

"Acceptable"? -- No.

It is the Limit Dive Speed, also known as the Design Limit speed.

You have pointed out that a safety factor of 150 % is built in so wouldn't that indicate a safe dive speed up to 724 mph ?

Sigh -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no safety margin built into the speed above Vd. The only "safety margin" is between Vmo and Vd.

Study this diagram. notice the Yellow Zone that say's "Caution". That is your "safety margin".

Now look at the Vd to the right on the lower diagram provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics. What does it say outside that line?

Very good Alfie - it says "Structural Failure".

Basically what your video is saying is that there is a double safety margin. One above Vmo, and then one above Vd.

He is wrong and the evidence I have listed under precedent proves it.

If you click the link I gave you teaching you the proper keywords to google for Vd, you'll find more proof.

We are getting in to the sound barrier region here but no-one has suggested that. Just perhaps 580 mph.

Some of your cohorts have claimed China Air 006 exceeded the speed of sound and attempted to use it as their precedent of an aircraft which survived excessive speed.

Only problem is that they are unable to provide a credible source for such speed claims, the NTSB data provided shows speeds at much less, and even if it did exceed the speed of sound, that is only 30 knots over it's Vmo (and below Vd).

It also still suffered in flight structural failure and lost control..

Your repeated question about a pilot flying 150 over VMO is meaningless because no pilot wanting to keep his job is likely to admit to that. Cutting out all the cr*p, isn't it the case that UA 175 was pushing it as regards speed but, what the hell, it was a one way trip.

Based on the evidence, data, precedent, and numerous verified experts, it is impossible for an aircraft to exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots, remain controllable/stable, or hold together.

Let me know when you find one that has, you've been failing for 87 pages.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:46 PM

No, I agree that for a Boeing 767 to fly over a major city at 700 ft at 580 mph was wildly reckless. But the thing is the pilot didn't care. Well, I suppose he did care, but just about piling on the knots.

I have seen evidence from you that the aircraft might have sustained damage. Might have required a maintenance checkover. But nothing to the effect that the plane must have broken up.

In the absence of evidence that UA 175 was modified or substituted it seems to me that, as a basic Boeing 767, it did what it did.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1
In the absence of evidence that UA 175 was modified or substituted it seems to me that, as a basic Boeing 767, it did what it did.

"If it cannot be proven that what the government told me is false, it must be true!" - Alfie, Argument From Ignorance

"If it cannot be proven that Santa Claus does not exist, that means he must exist, after all, NORAD tracks him each year on Dec 24!" - Essentially the very argument used by those who blindly support the OS.

Now read through and study the evidence.

After EIGHTY-SEVEN 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 87 pages.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1

You have pointed out that a safety factor of 150 % is built in so wouldn't that indicate a safe dive speed up to 724 mph ?

You have misread something. There is no mandated safety factor for design speed limits. Not 1%. The 150% is for load factors, i.e., the ultimate load limit is 50% more than the design load limit. See 14 C.F.R., Part 25 for Transport Category certification requirements. I,m not sure it's on the web, but a good public library will have it.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
You have misread something. There is no mandated safety factor for design speed limits. Not 1%. The 150% is for load factors, i.e., the ultimate load limit is 50% more than the design load limit. See 14 C.F.R., Part 25 for Transport Category certification requirements. I,m not sure it's on the web, but a good public library will have it.

It's typical of their nature. They repeatedly misread information and evidence to suit their bias or perhaps worse, their agenda.

We'll just keep repeating ourselves till they get it and/or get so frustrated they start ad homs and personal attacks (as does weedwhacker and a few others). I have no problem with that.

The only safety margin which is regulated is between Vmo and Vd, also under FAR Part 25.

If in simulation (wind tunnels), the Aircraft starts to flutter within this margin, they will lower Vmo.

This is another reason Vd is never published to any pilot. All they are taught is to stay below Vmo or they risk structural failure.

Makes you wonder that if the "hijackers" really had Commercial pilot certificates, why would they exceed Vmo by such a wide margin if they wanted to complete their mission?

edit on 14-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 06:16 PM

You've repeated this EXACT post for about 50 times (I wish someone else would take the time to count them....I exaggerate, of course....might only be 49 times).

It was WRONG the first time it was posted. Nothing has changed since.

These fallacies (and the mis-using of them as "precedents", by intentionally and selectively picking/choosing certain aspects, whilst ignoring the overall facts) have been pointed out, already. BUT, like I've said earlier, it is NOT cool to spam these Boards, so I have NOT repeated my analyses with the same frequency as these identical posts have been ....ermmm...."posted".

SO, these "precedents" (that really aren't) will be addressed forthwith. Tomorrow. It's getting late, and I have plans...

Precedent -
EA990
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
737
Modified DC-8

edit on 14 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 06:21 PM
And right on cue -

Originally posted by weedwhacker
so I have NOT repeated my analyses[sic] with the same frequency as these identical posts have been ....ermmm...."posted".

You have not repeated any "analyses"[sic] because you have not made any attempt to "analyses"[sic], and have been destroyed on every "analyses"[sic] you attempt to make.

This is why you need to re-type such "analyses"[sic], instead of just doing a simple search for a re-post of your non-existent "analyses"[sic].

weedwhacker, have you figured out how to plot your own V-G diagram yet when the V-Speeds are known?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 14-11-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 06:44 PM

I don't care what " the government " says. I presume you mean the US government. I am not a US citizen.

Turning to the issue ; you have failed in 80 plus pages to prove that UA 175 could not have impacted the WTC at about 580 mph. ( could have been a fair bit less according to MIT )

In any event, you are making an issue about the margins of what a Boeing 767 could do. No-one is suggesting it was going 1000 mph or anything ludicrous. But you will not have it that UA 175 could have struck at 500 mph or so.

Your diagrams suggest that 1 mph this way and 1 mph the other spell the difference between safety and disaster and this does not accord with common sense.

I say again, if you cannot provide any evidence that UA 175 was modified or substituted then it is reasonable to accept that a standard Boeing 767 did what it did.

posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM

Here's a good video to watch, which is one of the recently released files by NIST following a FOIA suit.
This may help for people to understand the difficulty involved in what we are led to believe was the hijacked airliner that hit the south WTC tower.

Think about this angle and how during the amount of time that it is hidden behind the towers, it levels out, changes direction, and lines up to hit the tower not too far from center.

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:33 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

You can crush a .38 calibre bullet with a hammer.

Fire that same bullet from a gun???? Then IT becomes the boss.....

ummm...yes and no.

While using a hammer the force imparted on the bullet and hammer are the same at point of contact.

There is enough force to break the bullet, but enough to break the hammer.

When you fire the bullet from a gun, the same forces is imparted on the hammer and the bullet at point
of contact.

The bullet breaks apart, and so does the hammer due to the increased force (F=ma)

The bullet still breaks; it's never the "boss".

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 03:38 AM

The mission was to CRASH do YOU not realise that, the mission was to hit the towers it would not matter to them if they broke up before hitting them would it.
as in such a densley populated city many would have died.

You never know may be more would have died if they had broke up!

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 03:59 AM

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

you forgotten the central wing spar, engine hardpoints, luggage containers full of luggage (they can withstand some explosions) etc and the fact that upto a 315,000 lb (maximum take off weight) aircraft flying at 530 mph+, there is enough energy here to destroy lots of things, let alone a building.

"enough" energy doesn't really say much, does it? What it says is that, in your unquantified opinion, a 767 at cruise has the energy to knock down a 450 million kilogram structure.
Well, now, how much kinetic energy really is in a 315,000 pound airplane at 530mph?
We can use your weight, although after takeoff and some flight, and given that for the planned flight a full fuel load wouldn't be needed, the weight would be less than MTOW. 315,000 pounds is 142,882 kilograms. 530 mph is 853 kilometers/hour or 237 meters/second, so using the formula for kinetic energy, KE =1/2mv^2 where KE is kinetic energy, m is mass and v is velocity, you end up with close to 4 megajoules. That is 4 million joules. A standard .6 pound stick of dynamite, with an energy density of 7.5MJ/kg, contains 2.1 MJ of energy. So a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph has the same energy as two whole sticks of dynamite.
Perhaps you would rather compare it with a bomb, such as we see dropped on stuff in Iraq or A'stan. The most common bomb is the Mark 82 500 pounder. It has 79 kilograms of high explosive, either H-6, Minotol, or Tritonol, all of which carry an energy density of 4.7 MJ/kg, so a single 500 pound dumb bomb is 92 times more energetic than a a Boeing 767-222 at MTOW at 530 mph.

Lets see Kenetic ke = 1/2xmxv sqaured lets put the figs in

so 0.5x142882x237x237=4,012,769,529 4 GIGA JOULES

2000 sticks of dynamite SORRY back to school for you!

You also dont take into account the explosive force of the fuel ,the aircraft did enough damage once the load above impact point fell that was it DO you want to work out that LOAD!!!!!
edit on 15-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: punctuation

edit on 15-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

JUST READ THE NEXT FEW POSTS you saw the error but I must ask what the hell is happening to education around the world!!!!
edit on 15-11-2010 by wmd_2008 because: Added note

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 04:15 AM

So you think the plane caused NO damage to the building is that what you are saying.

So this didn't happen

Also if you were right this could never be done.

There were lots of different forces acting as the planes impacted the walls you just dont understand thats all!

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:17 AM
If you want to overturn the OS based solely on the flight characteristics of Flight 175 then you have to prove that it would have been impossible for the plane to fly as described by the tracking data. To say something is "impossible" (as opposed to merely unlikely or improbable) is a very strong statement and requires a high standard of proof.

The various charts and technical data we've seen in this thread provide evidence that the plane would have to have exceeded its design limits to fly as it did, however there has been no evidence that this would have made the flight impossible.

The expert opinion from P4T members is contradicted by the many pilots and engineers who support the OS (whether tacetly or not). Truth is not decided by popular consensus of course, but where there is expert disagreement then clearly more evidence is required.

Discussion of past incidents of aircraft exceeding design limits by different degrees and with different outcomes has been a distraction. At most this shows that flight 175 may have been unprecedented, which of course does not mean it was impossible.

The evidence presented may support the conclusion that flight 175 was improbable, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was impossible.

Tiffany and others on this thread have maintained the logical position that all they need to do is show that the OS is impossible without offering a better explanation. However, if you can only make the case that it was improbable then you need to propose a better explanation and so far nobody has been able to do that.

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:59 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

There were lots of different forces acting as the planes impacted the walls you just dont understand thats all!

LOL. So now the WTC was made of bricks
And a Karate Fighter came and punched 3 wtcs from ABOVE to destroy them.

Please stop with those ridicoulus comparisons If we show you a burning Skycraper over 10+ hours over multiple floors that did not collapse afterwards like did building 7, you dismiss it as not beeing credible cause its "different"

But Yet you show as a Karte Fighter, smashing 30+ Bricks and compare this as things we dont understand about 911.

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:40 AM

Two stars from some "fans" for trying to correct (and criticize) spelling? (and failing at it...)

"analyses"[sic]....[snipped].... "analyses"[sic]....[snipped]...."analyses"[sic]....

Do you know the singular word "analysis" and its plural form??? Yup! The plural of "analysis" is "analyses".

It is pronounced (in American English) (phonetically, my interpretation): "a-NAL-uh-seas"

Good job!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, that's cute too, those "Banned!" words you've inserted into your profile!! Funny, checking the profile, it is still active. So, I must remain civil and polite, as ever. This is me complimenting you on your cleverness.
edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:47 AM

Your perspective, based on your interpretation of that video, is well off....as if you have little experience watching airplanes from long distances, as they fly toward you:

...during the amount of time that it is hidden behind the towers, it levels out, changes direction, and lines up to hit the tower not too far from center...

No, the only thing that happened, throughout, was a gradual slowing of the descent rate, and a very minor increase in left bank...the gradual left turn to correct his alignment had begun earlier....it was just a split second before impact that he increased his angle a few more degrees. This indicates without doubt the constant adjustments being made, as he judged progress and target accuracy.....

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 09:49 AM

Tiffany likes to score points based on the red underlining that her browser window gives words it doesn't understand. She thinks this makes her look clever. Except it sometimes backfires

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:04 AM

The evidence presented may support the conclusion that flight 175 was improbable, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was impossible.
Improbable for a pilot well experienced flying that particular plane, but in my opinion, impossible for anyone else, including hijackers who could barely fly a cessna.
A good resource for gaining perspective on piloting, that I have made considerable use of, is the X-Plane forum because a lot of people who use that slight simulation program actually fly those same craft in the real world.
A comment there that pertains to this topic is that pilots who aspire to flying large airliners should not even start out training on a small plane because of how radically different the controls are. In a small plane you are using the strength of your arms to steer, while in an airliner that type of touch will put you immediately into a nose dive or something.
Unless you try a maneuver like I am pointing out in my previous post, you can not appreciate the difficulty. I would recomend to anyone thinking it is easy to do it on your computer, record a video of it and put it on YouTube and post a link here so we can all watch. I had one person take me up on the challenge and he posted it with a private link that he messaged to me. I was trying to be kind in my comments on it but it was more like what I claim as being the real path of the real airliner, which is close to a straight line, which by the way I still miss the tower some times using.

edit on 15-11-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

141