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.
Originally posted by sputniksteve
You want evidence that this is possible? Here you go Tiffany www.youtube.com...
Obviously that will not be good enough for you but you asked for evidence so I will supply it =)
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 recommend 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.
Originally posted by Alfie1
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.
Originally posted by Alfie1
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.
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.
I do not have some sort of morbid fascination with death, to where I enjoy any of this. For example, for research purposes I was watching plane crash videos on YouTube last night and it was all I could do to not break down crying. And by the way, for anyone who has been following this thread, the friend that I mentioned who knew Atta suffers horribly just for knowing the guy and cries quite a bit over it. My point is, I am not doing this, posting about 911, for fun and wish I could just forget it. I don't because I feel an obligation to humanity to speak out about what I know for a fact is a lie and not from supposition but as a witness. If anyone else existed with the same experience as mine, and was speaking out, I would gladly let the whole subject drop from my mind.
So you think the plane caused NO damage to the building is that what you are saying.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by jmdewey60
Are you an airline pilot? Do have ANY actual experience in real airplanes? Even a little bit in small GA types??
Oh??? Do tell...so, you don't have actual real-world flying experience?
I'm afraid you really don't know what you're talking about, but by all means, make a YT video. I'll watch.
edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
OK, apparently I am not using the right terminology, but my general point is that experience on one type of plane does not necessarily transfer well to a different type of plane.
a GA airplane, it is the SMALL airplane that is easy to over-control, after being accustomed to the Boeing.
Originally posted by Jimb07
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.
Originally posted by Jimb07
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.
Originally posted by Jimb07
The expert opinion from P4T members is contradicted by the many pilots and engineers who support the OS (whether tacetly or not).
Originally posted by Jimb07
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.
Originally posted by Jimb07
The evidence presented may support the conclusion that flight 175 was improbable, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was impossible.
Originally posted by Jimb07
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.
...the evidence proves it was far more than improbable and more along the lines of impossible unless you can show a 767 that exceeded Vmo+150, Va+220 - pulled 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, and maintained its structural integrity...
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
"Tiffany" keeps repeating this (and now you too), and whenever I answer it, I am ignored by "her"
...the evidence proves it was far more than improbable and more along the lines of impossible unless you can show a 767 that exceeded Vmo+150, Va+220 - pulled 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, and maintained its structural integrity...
"pulled G's" ?? "out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on..." (etc, etc, blah blah).
Garbage, and nonsense and flat WRONG!!! It is exaggerated, and pure bunk! Any pilot who flies knows this....what the "P4T" and any minions that are sent out to spew their crap repeat posts....as laughably incorrect, and hyperbole.
AND, there is no "Va" designated for Transport Category jets, so that bit is increasingly laughable too...and indicates the sheer ineptitude of the sorts of fantasists that write that junk, at the "P4T".
In any event, the Boeing 767 (as all Transports) is certified to a positive G load of +2.5. NOTHING in the flight profile seen on 9/11, when looking at the airplanes in NYC and DC, exhibit that much G-loading. (I have to check, but I don't think United 93 did, either).
What is more...as they ["P4T"] keep trying to use so-called "precedents" incorrectly...like China Airlines 006....THAT Boeing 747 exceeded 2.5 Gs....as much as 5 Gs!!! That was recorded...and yes, structural damage occurred, but NOT catastrophic "fall-out-of-the-sky-immediately" damage. It landed safely...flew for about an entire HOUR to get to the diversion airport (San Francisco).
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Hitching one's wagon to "P4T" is a terrible idea, for they are the losing team.....
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
Too bad you've fallen for the "P4T" garbage and hype.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
You want SO BADLY to "believe" it..... :shk:
Here. It is a Boeing 727, low altitude, and at Vmo (390 knots is announced by the EmCee) in that demonstration pass. B-727s have several different Vmo limits, depending on model and configuration. I won't go into details, and it's been MANY years since I flew the darn things, anyway...):
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, Orion...IF YOU were/are an airline pilot, then you would be in a position to speak as an equal. So far, you seem to only accept (without question, and lacking practical experience to judge their merits) what is spewed by "P4T".
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Isn't it interesting that NONE of the airline pilots unions, WORLDWIDE endorse that "group"???
Originally posted by weedwhacker
I mean, the APA (American's Pilot Union) and the ALPA chapter at USAir just joined together to publically criticize the Homeland Security pat-down and body scanner rules....gee, you'd think if THEY could get together (ALPA National is still mulling it over), then they'd have joined with "P4T" a LONG time ago!! Right???
everything you've just stated was already answered and debunked by tiffany... you obviously dodged it and now that she's not here, you repeat the same debunked argument hoping no one remembers.
...and yet the list of real pilots with real names and experience that surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself keeps growing.
...surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself ...
...which would explain why you don't know how to plot your own V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Orion7911
"Tiffany" and "her" posts are a load of BS, and are completely merit less:
everything you've just stated was already answered and debunked by tiffany... you obviously dodged it and now that she's not here, you repeat the same debunked argument hoping no one remembers.
I have told you....EACH time I bring up "Tiffany"s errors, I am ignored...."her" ONLY response to my points, when I raise them, is to REPEAT THE SAME SPAM POSTS. Over and over and over and over and over and over..... (that was annoying, wasn't it? So is the "P4T" lies and garbage).
...and yet the list of real pilots with real names and experience that surpasses google/sim pilots like yourself keeps growing.
"real" pilots??? Do you mean the crowd at "P4T"???
Firstly, with a handful of exceptions, they have NO "real" pilots....take a long look at their membership roster, and the CV of each.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
BTW....plenty of ATS staff members, and regular members, know my real life details. Accusing me of being "fake" is just going to spread that egg on your face even more thickly.....
edit on 15 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by weedwhacker
Oh, nevermind......problem seems to be solved.
For review: Videos that show simulator flights that re-created high-speed Pentagon attack. Other videos that show commercial airliners at high-speed, flying low passes (airshow examples).
AND, best evidence? Dozens of videos and stills, especially of the most documented part of the 9/11 events (because of the earlier impact of American 11, and cameras being focused on the WTC Towers), United 175 approach and impact.
All "arguments" attempting to refute these facts seem destined to fail, since they offer no alternative "theory" of any substance,
and tiffany provided that for 87+ pages. Guess you either haven't read the entire thread, or have a problem in comprehension.
yet you can't name or find one of those pilots willing to support your claim and that its "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.
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.
Originally posted by Jimb07
I was addressing the first argument in my post, but my view is much the same on the second. I accept it was improbable, but I've yet to be convinced it was impossible.
And if this were a court of law, you would be instructed that you cannot convict based the fact that those who argue in favor of the OS have not proven their case "Beyond a Reasonable doubt".