9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it, page 62

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:40 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
defcon5 comes to this thread and claims China Air 006 "exceeded the speeds of sound".. He fails to provide a source for his external quote.

Which is a simple matter of looking up, and would have been provided if you had asked for it.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
I find the source and the same source claims "a tail fell of a turboprop airline". under the same narrative. A link is never provided to suggest it is different than the original narrative.

In a different paragraph in a long list of other aircraft incidents, and just proceeding a link to a second page talking about the DC-8 incident.

Of course this is nothing more then him looking for loopholes because he does not like what that link, and others have to say about his theory.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
His original source goes on to state DC-8 anomalies and provides a link. Suggesting his source is now speaking of a different event.

That the NEXT PARAGRAPH, and the last paragraph on the page leading to a link to a second page, was talking about something else would be logical to most people. But again we are looking for loopholes here because we don’t want to admit that an aircraft can, after all, exceed its design specs, and not suffer catastrophic failure.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
defcon5 claims he "forgot to add a source link".

The only link I have not provided was the initial link to my very first quote. I will be happy to send an alert in on myself to have a 911 or super-moderator fix that for you since it seems to be such an issue for you.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
I go on to study numerous sources, including the NTSB and wiki sources he posted. None of which support the claim that the aircraft "exceeded the sound barrier".

Funny that the link to wikipedia shows China air listed under instances of aircraft breaking the sound barrier, and shows up under the page on the sound barrier.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
defcon5 provides quotes out of context by actually changing the external quotes, by omitting pertinent words, capitalizing others, and changing punctuation.

No it was my intent to show only the quote from the captain, that quote remains true, the captain stated that he broke VMO twice and almost stalled the aircraft out once. The rest is speculation from the NTSB, which I am surprised that a member of the Truth movement would even want to quote from since they hate the 911 NTSB report so much.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
defcon5 blames it on his "spell checker" as if he actually puts external quotes through a spell checker to correct spelling of his sources.

I construct all my documents in a word processor where I add my tags etc…

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
C'mon folks. How many times are you going to buy into such blatant deception?

The only deception going on here is coming from yourself.

First you state that China Air suffered STRUCTURAL FAILURE, ie the aircraft broke apart and was unflyable. Now its been pointed out that the aircraft only suffered frame damage and damage to its control surfaces you want to downplay the fact that the aircraft exceeded its structural limits.

Now WHICH IS IT?
Please get back to the topic.
The topic is not your excuses to try and discredit me, the topic was China Air, or even that Professional Pilots could not do 911.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/24/2010 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

TiffanyInLA

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:56 PM

link

Originally posted by defcon5
Funny that the link to wikipedia shows China air listed under instances of aircraft breaking the sound barrier, and shows up under the page on the sound barrier.

Yet the footnote attached to such a claim on wiki has no mention of the "sound barrier".

Read -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You do know anyone can edit wiki, right?

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.

Anyway, I'm out for the night. "Debunkers", feel free to 'dog pile' at this time because as some of you have claimed - "No one cares".

defcon5

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:00 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Yeah, here is the part which you repeatedly claim to be not reading:

First you state that China Air suffered STRUCTURAL FAILURE, ie the aircraft broke apart and was unflyable. Now its been pointed out that the aircraft only suffered frame damage and damage to its control surfaces you want to downplay the fact that the aircraft exceeded its structural limit.

I’ll put it first this time so you can't miss it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

defcon5

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:12 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The site that TiffanyInLA is picking on is run by:
AirlineSafety.com

The Editor of this Web Page, now retired, was an airline pilot for 33 years and holds 6 specific Captain's type-ratings on Boeing Jet Airliners.

However, according to Tiffany, apparently this person does not know the difference between a Turbofan and a Turboprop, or when an aircraft has broken the sound barrier.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/25/2010 by defcon5 because: tags

weedwhacker

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 09:54 AM

link

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I think this explains everything.....thank you for finally pointing it out, now EVERYONE will understand how those who promote the "P4T" skewed view of reality actually continue in their tiny bubble of brainwashed delusions:

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.

Once again, for emphasis:

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.

And, just in case anyone missed it:

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read.

NOW it finally makes sense... :shk:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yeah, almost forgot, from the SAME post:

You don't know this and you are a mod for ATS?

How flippin' rude!! (Reminds me of the attitude shown over at "P4T"....did you learn that behavior from Balsamo??)

edit on 25 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Text

open_eyeballs

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 01:28 PM

link

I think a pertinent question here is how were the "hijackers" so focused?

More specifically, the second plane that hit has to make a last second maneuver to actually hit the building. What kind of crazy phsychosis (drugs?) was the guy under while he was flying a jumbo jet at 500 mph approaching a massive building and how was he able to concentrate enough to make the right move while the picture in his window is getting larger and closer by the milisecond?

They say the hardest thing in sports is to hit a 90+mph fastball. Well a fastball usually has a somewhat straight path. Try hitting a 85mph slider. If indeed there were humans flying those aircraft, the pilots had extraordinary focus.

I wouldnt be shocked to find out some mind altering substance was running through their veins at the time of the hijackings.

weemadmental

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 01:33 PM

link

reply to post by open_eyeballs

would you behave yourself, if they had drugs in their system they would not be able to fly the liner, let alone crash it, like they did, they were religious and had beliefs, if you want to propose otherwise please start another thread

Wee Mad

open_eyeballs

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 01:57 PM

link

reply to post by weemadmental

I cant tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but I was being serious and I think its a valid question. How were the pilots so focused to make that last second maneuver? Some people use Anphedamine drugs (which were created by the nazis in WWII) for focusing efforts. Maybe that is a reason they were able to pull off the stunts. Just a theory, and just a question..but its one that shouldnt be ignored I think.

TrickoftheShade

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:19 PM

link

reply to post by open_eyeballs

There's evidence of other al-qaeda affiliated operatives - such as those in Mumbai for example - taking ecstasy (mdma). I can see how it could induce a sort of quasi-religious beatific state. But you'd have to be pretty hardcore about wanting to murder people to overcome the feelings of brotherly love.

And didn't the original assassins take hashih - hence the name?

IzzycomesinPeace

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 10:03 PM

link

Okay, I haven't read the full thread because it's extremely long and I feel like I'm reading the same comments over and over again. But...I don't really understand how hard it could be to fly a plane into a building... I'm pretty sure it takes more skills to avoid a building than it does to fly into one. But thats just my common sense...I'm not a pilot..and I don't know very much about planes. So...thats my opinion for what it's worth. Oh.. another thought...If people are suggesting that it was actually a military plane that crashed into the towers...You really don't think it would be just as easy to make up a story about why a military plane flew into the towers and how the terrorists are linked? I mean the majority of the population blindly believes what the government says anyways...they wouldn't really need to make the plan that intricate...But hey again.. what do I know?

defcon5

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 10:42 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace

Yeah, most novices can crash right out of the box with no training whatsoever, hence the fact that real pilots spend thousands of dollars and years of training learning how not too. The fact that P4T pilots seem to think this required some Herculean effort simply tells me that I am darn glad I never had to fly with any of them.

Originally posted by IzzycomesinPeace
But that’s just my common sense...

Be careful about using that around here, it can cause irreparable neurological damage. Mainly from banging your head into hard objects such as desktops, computer screens, keyboards, and brick walls.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

TiffanyInLA

posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 11:37 PM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Yeah, here is the part which you repeatedly claim to be not reading:

Here is the part you seem to be misreading -

....the airplane suffered major structural damage during the upset...

Bottom line defcon5, the structure failed. Since you seem to be confused by the definitions. Let me help you.

Structural damage is when things are bent, twisted, crumpled, cracked, dented, etc... The structure is damaged.

Structural failure is when any part of the aircraft leaves the structure for which it was intended and/or the airframe as a whole. The structure has failed. (eg, Control surfaces torn from the airframe).

This is a structural failure -

Let us know when you are able to find a credible source for when the aircraft "exceeded the speed of sound", as you have not been able to provide any thus far.

And again for the third time defcon5 -

Even if you should by some miracle find a credible source for such a claim, "exceeding the sound barrier" is only 30 knots over Vmo for the 747SP. You still have another 120 to go.

Do you know what the "SP" stands for in the 747SP?

Do you know how to calculate an equivalent airspeed? Do you even know what EAS is?

You seem to ignore these questions. I don't blame you.

I'm pretty sure it takes more skills to avoid a building than it does to fly into one. But thats just my common sense..

Because the sky is so much smaller than all the building sticking up into it, all the way up to 60,000 feet.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

That's like saying, when playing darts, it takes more skill to avoid the board, than it does to hit the bulls-eye.

The fact that P4T pilots seem to think this required some Herculean effort simply tells me that I am darn glad I never had to fly with any of them.

And yet you still are unable to provide one verified pilot to support your claims. Keep in mind, many P4T members also teach. So I guess you'll have to avoid their students as well. Looks like it's the train for you.

After SIXTY-TWO 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
Precedent - EA990, China Airlines 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, or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits.
Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...)

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 = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Again -

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..."

By the way defcon, several pilots who are also ATS members, came out in this thread in support of P4T findings. None are affiliated with P4T. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do a search for JetStream, 4nsicphd, Capt Chaos, to name a few. There were about 4 others.

One thing about the truth, it opens the eyes of those who become informed. That is why these lists grow.

patriotsquestion911.com...

edit on 25-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: clarity, typo

extra DIV

defcon5

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 12:01 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Sorry tiffany…
I just could not read your post beyond that point…

Anyway, I don’t have time tonight, they’re making me take a mod writing exam now because of you

, I’ll try and get to your stuff tomorrow, as I do of course read everything that you post to me since I entered the thread at page 57.

Oh, and just to let you know, I alerted on my missing link pages back just to show that I am not above the rules here myself.

Now I get to do TP and KP in the mod dungeon for the next three weeks... Thanks a lot.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

I'm pretty sure it takes more skills to avoid a building than it does to fly into one. But thats just my common sense..

Because the sky is so much smaller than all the building sticking up into it, all the way up to 60,000 feet.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

The ground is almost as big and wide as the sky above it, and it tends to suck things in toward it. This troublesome thing they call gravity and all.

Anyway, have a good one.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

TiffanyInLA

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 12:34 AM

link

Originally posted by defcon5

The ground is almost as big and wide as the sky above it,

Then how are thousands of planes every day able to avoid it while not being able to see it?

The way you talk (and presumably your 'common sense'), IFR/IMC flight would never exist.

Also, he wasn't talking about the "ground", he was talking about buildings and that it would be harder to avoid a building than to hit it. You agreed with his "common sense".

Are you saying the surface areas of all the buildings on the earth is larger than the volume of the atmosphere? Apparently your "common sense" says yes.

Finally, you are wrong, again.

The "effective volume" of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. This figure is the surface area of the Earth (509 million square kilometers) times the "effective thickness" of the atmosphere (8.2 kilometers, or about 27,000 ft).

Source - wiki.answers.com...

In case you're still confused.

The sky is 8,251 times bigger than the surface area of the Earth. And that's only up to 27,000 feet. Double that for up to 60,000.

it tends to suck things in toward it. This troublesome thing they call gravity and all.

Yes, and airplanes actually 'defy' gravity (gotta love scare quotes..), it's called lift. But this lift is limited to a certain range of speed and weight. When you exceed those limits, it presents a serious control problem. Again, ATS member JetStream explains it well... (not affiliated with P4T).

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.

As you increase speed beyond the design limits you need more nose down. At a certain speed you will run out of nose down authority.And the Aircraft will climb regardless of your nose down force on the yoke-simply because the aircraft is not built to exceed or fly... outside of its flight envelope.
Thats just a cost for no gain.

[snip]

An airplane is a beautifully balanced piece of equipment,within its design parameters. At the claimed speed what will the roll rate be?Don't know.I don't even know if the spoilers could stay attached at that speed.But a little if any deflection can have huge control issues.

[snip]

And again-I tried this in a 737-400 simulator. I ran out of nose down pitch authority and the airplane started to climb even with my full nose down command on the yoke.

Mentioning this above - "That's like saying, when playing darts, it takes more skill to avoid the board, than it does to hit the bulls-eye." actually gave me an idea to compare the WTC hit to playing darts.

A Dart board bulls-eye is 12.7mm in diameter.

Lets say the steel end of the dart is 1mm (We know it's less, but for arguments sake).

The wingspan of a 767 s 156 feet..

Lets see how wide the WTC would have to be in comparison.

1/12.7=156/x

X = 1,981.2

The WTC would have to be 1,981.2 feet wide comparing Darts to the WTC hit.

Now lets figure the odds.

1981.2/208 = 9.5

It is almost 10 times easier to hit the bulls-eye playing darts than it is to hit the WTC with a 767.

The above does not take into consideration the skill level of the thrower/pilot.

edit on 26-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: added Earth Atmosphere vs surface area comparison

TiffanyInLA

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 02:01 AM

link

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The above does not take into consideration the skill level of the thrower/pilot.

More fun with darts. :-)

I figured out how large the bulls-eye would have to be on a dart board when comparing to the WTC hit.

1.3mm x 9mm would be the equivalent based on a 1mm diameter dart.

Two people, who have never played darts before, hit this red-line bulls-eye below, on their first try....

... that is, if you blindly believe what ever your govt tells you...

Alfie1

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:54 AM

link

reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace

It certainly doesn't hurt to apply common sense to a thread like this . Then we can leave the supposed aviation professional to calculate important stuff like the volume of the earth's atmosphere and the dimensions of a giant dartboard.

Tiffany conceded pages back that she doesn't claim the Boeing 767's that hit the Towers were modified or substituted so I would have thought that would be the end of the matter. The orignal unmodified planes did what they did.

But no, we are on to dartboards. Well, as a layman, I find these dimensions interesting. The Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 156'. They routinely land on a runway at Dulles which is 150 ' wide , i.e. less than its wingspan. The impacted sides of the WTC Towers were 207 ' wide , i.e. more than 50 ' wider than the wingspan. If coming down on a runway 150' wide is a fluke I think passengers should be told.

Not only were the Towers a good deal wider than a runway but they were helpfully sticking straight up more than 1360' in the air. This also surely meant that the pilots, within reason, did not have to overly concern themselves with height, as is evidenced by the fact that the North Tower was hit much higher than the South. What they had to do was go as fast as possible and simply not miss right or left.

TiffanyInLA

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:23 AM

link

Apparently Alfie has a short memory as I also stated this (and some people wonder why I have to repeat myself)

I'll emphasize the parts Alfie apparently missed..

If I make a claim, I expect to back it up with evidence. Obviously I cannot "prove" the aircraft were modified as I do not have the parts. Just as you cannot prove the aircraft were standard, because you cannot provide the parts.

All evidence thus far points to the fact that the aircraft as reported could not achieve the speeds reported as well as not able to be controlled by a "hijacker" who had less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claim instead of assumption, speculation or "because the govt told me so...". You and your kind have been failing for more than 60 pages.

Originally posted by Alfie1
They routinely land on a runway at Dulles which is 150 ' wide , i.e. less than its wingspan.

Do they land at 510 knots?

No, they don't.

Do you know why they don't?

Apparently not.

Not only were the Towers a good deal wider than a runway but they were helpfully sticking straight up more than 1360' in the air. This also surely meant that the pilots, within reason, did not have to overly concern themselves with height, as is evidenced by the fact that the North Tower was hit much higher than the South. What they had to do was go as fast as possible and simply not miss right or left.

If you would like to compare apples to apples, compare an Aircraft Carrier to the WTC, as they are about the same size.

Then take a few minutes and watch this presentation here to learn about landing on a Carrier vs. hitting the WTC as illustrated and told by pilots from Top Gun and United and American Airlines, which also happen to have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

9/11: World Trade Center Attack

Again -

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 hit a runway in 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..."

TrickoftheShade

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:32 AM

link

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

So you're saying that the example given by Defcon involved serious structural failure?

And yet that plane was able to land. So I have little difficulty believing that it also could have crashed into a building.

Any update on your position re the status of the objects that crashed into the WTC? It seems to me you have three options, two of which you have rejected, one because you have no proof and the other because you're just unwilling to discuss it for some reason.

1 the planes were modified
2 the planes were not planes, but holograms, CGI, or somesuch
3 the planes were not going at the speed that is stated for them.

If it's the latter, and it seems to be, then wow. You've really got a smoking gun on your hands here.

TiffanyInLA

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:45 AM

link

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So you're saying that the example given by Defcon involved serious structural failure?

You don't think losing half of your horizontal stab which is also a major control surface for the control of the aircraft is serious?

I direct you back to the post made by JetStream. Read and learn.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know when you find one pilot (or passenger for that matter) willing to agree with you.

Too funny...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And yet that plane was able to land. So I have little difficulty believing that it also could have crashed into a building.

The plane was uncontrollable for almost 30,000 feet. How many feet did the WTC "hijackers" have at 510 knots?

Here's a hint, less than 1,000.

Also, the 747SP pilot had this for experience -

Captain Ho had passed his last two simulator proficiency checks on February 2 and November 5, 1984, and he passed his last route check on April 14, 1984. The captain had flown 15,494 hours, 3748 of which were in Boeing 747 airplanes. During the last 90 days, 30 days, and 24 hours before the accident he had flown 254 hours, 82 hours, and zero hours, respectively.

(second time posted - www.abovetopsecret.com...)

I suppose you think al-shehhi could have still hit the WTC with half of a horizontal stab?

Again, even if the 747SP "exceeded the speeds of sound", (which still has yet to backed up with a credible source), the 747SP only exceeded it's Vmo by roughly 30 knots. You still have another 120 to go in order to compare apples to apples, and then you have to get a pilot with the same skill level as Capt Ho.

Any update on your position re the status of the objects that crashed into the WTC? It seems to me you have three options, two of which you have rejected, one because you have no proof and the other because you're just unwilling to discuss it for some reason.

1 the planes were modified
2 the planes were not planes, but holograms, CGI, or somesuch
3 the planes were not going at the speed that is stated for them.

See post above yours.

Then read Disinfo tactic number 14 here - Click

Although I'm sure you're very familiar with it as you attempt to use such tactics regularly..... but "No one cares", right Tricky?

edit on 26-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo

TrickoftheShade

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:09 AM

link

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

You don't think losing half of your horizontal stab which is also a major control surface for the control of the aircraft is serious?

I'm not saying it isn't serious. I'm saying - and I can't believe how simple this is - that it's easier to crash a plane than land it. And that it's easier to perform feats of extraordinary dangerousness when your intention is to kill yourself and everybody on board.

You have been furnished with an example where, you freely admit, serious structural failure occurred. And the pilot was subsequently able to land the plane. Not just crash it, land it.

This is the example that you've been looking for, that directly refutes your argument. As such you are attempting to disqualify it by bringing up other issues, such as skill levels, and your usual appeal to authority based on a few crackpots with vested interests.

Furthermore, as you also admit, the pilot had 30,000 feet in this situation. The WTC terrorists required integrity for only 1000.

I suppose you think al-shehhi could have still hit the WTC with half of a horizontal stab?

This is a mendacious argument. You are saying that such a failure necessarily involves the exact loss of faculties that the China example experienced? That's ridiculous.

Any update on your position re the status of the objects that crashed into the WTC? It seems to me you have three options, two of which you have rejected, one because you have no proof and the other because you're just unwilling to discuss it for some reason.

1 the planes were modified
2 the planes were not planes, but holograms, CGI, or somesuch
3 the planes were not going at the speed that is stated for them.

See post above yours.

Then read Disinfo tactic number 14 here - Click

Although I'm sure you're very familiar with it as you attempt to use such tactics regularly..... but "No one cares", right Tricky?

edit on 26-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo

It's a "disinfo tactic" to require you to address the implications of your ideas?

It's not. It's standard practice in logical discussions here in the real world. Which is why you will never be taken seriously by anybody but fringe whack-jobs desperate to believe you.

I reiterate: you don't believe in NPT, you don't think the planes were modified; this leaves you only one conclusion. And it's not particularly exciting.

edit on 26-10-2010 by TrickoftheShade because: (no reason given)