9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

The rest of us want answers.

No you don't. You want hits on your website so you can sell advertising space. There's your real conspiracy.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


A picture from photobucket account with some stripes on a mangled piece of metal = N612UA?

A mangled piece of metal with a visible N 6 and the lower right hand corner of the 2, all in their proper positions = N612UA

Is it evidence of a standard 767? - No.

It is evidence of a specific 767 - N612UA

But, if that convinces you as positive identification for N612UA, I guess everyone has their standards before they will accept what the govt has told them.

These pictures have been around for years. The N number has always been there. The government didn't tell me it was there; I saw it myself. Why didn't you notice them?

I'm afraid numerous Highly Trained Aircraft Accident Investigators are gonna need more than that.

If they cannot figure out the aircraft's N number from the aircraft's N number, they are not highly trained.

By the way, what is your original source for those photos?

The Internet of course, silly girl.

Originally posted by waypastvne

By the way, what is your original source for those photos?

The Internet of course, silly girl.

Nuff said. Thanks.

Second line.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

The rest of us want answers.

No you don't. You want hits on your website so you can sell advertising space. There's your real conspiracy.

Please quote where I made such a claim.

Hooper, this is perhaps the 5th time you constructed strawman arguments regarding claims I have never made. You may want to think about changing your strategy before your credibility diminishes further.

Have you figured out the reported speeds for "Flight 11" yet?

Need a link?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Pilots For 9/11 Truth have contacted the FBI and the NTSB. ..They refuse to comment.

LOL...you are surprised that the FBI and NTSB doesn't give information out to nutjob-whack job conspiracy clubs that claim an aircraft will fall apart when it reaches its "design limits"? Period?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


DO YOU KEEP SAYING vmo FOR YOUR SELF ?

Because it really sounds like a child painted in a corner goin na ah na ah...


you are denying that the planes everyone saw that day wasnt there ??

and somehow you a fourth party observationalist is somehow gonna prove that they are in correct save your sub par evidence if it was anything but sub par you would have received an award and been on every news channel accross the world your proof isnt proof its just manipulated material remember if you really had evidence it would be received warmly not ridiculed as fiction.

just so you know i dont have any faith in our government i think they BS us everyday and that there were lies involved in 9/11 however this is nonsense.

i was there when the planes hit the twin towers but people in a bsaement in wyoming still try to convince me that there were no planes no nothing are you people serious this is the danger of free thought dont hurt yourself looking for things that dont exist...

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Pilots For 9/11 Truth have contacted the FBI and the NTSB. ..They refuse to comment.

LOL...you are surprised that the FBI and NTSB doesn't give information out to nutjob-whack job conspiracy clubs that claim an aircraft will fall apart when it reaches its "design limits"? Period?

trebor,

Do you feel it is easy to control an aircraft which has exceeded it's Vmo by 120-150 knots? Do you think such an aircraft would be stable and controllable to hit a target with a 25' margin for error?

How much flight time do you have trebor?

Why do you refuse to answer these questions?

Originally posted by triplescorpio
DO YOU KEEP SAYING vmo FOR YOUR SELF ?

Because it really sounds like a child painted in a corner goin na ah na ah...

Actually, Vmo is the acronym of Velocity Max Operating.

I didn't come up with it. Complain to the FAA.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


dude i know what it means but it s like your safety word lol

???????????????????????????

Originally posted by triplescorpio
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

dude i know what it means but it s like your safety word lol

???????????????????????????

Actually, it is a limit set by the manufacturer letting you know that if you go over that limit, you risk losing control and breaking your airplane. I think we will all agree a broken airplane is hard to control?

Here are some instructional tools to help you understand.

The following is called a V-G diagram or Flight Envelope. The speeds for a 767 have been inserted by definition and regulations as required by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)

(be sure to use the horizontal scroll bar on bottom and scroll right for full picture)


Notice the red zone to the right and the text used. "Structural Failure".

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) - a 767, corroborates the above V-G diagram as EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

Learn more here about the above diagram from APS Training, an aerobatic flight school.

www.apstraining.com...

Hope this helps.



[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

I know how they flew the planes into those three buildings.
Allah was at the flight controls, as he had the twenty six virgins rady and waiting for them.
26 x 19 = 494.

Wait there are not that many virgins in heaven.

Structural failure means a lot of things you know, these jets have a large safety margin, and can fail at different points, but the flight data recorded the flight and the pilots have rammed the aircraft into the building, i watched it live and would swear before any court that i seen this with my own two eyes, i dont see what you are arguing about, this actually happened it was recorded on hundreds of video cameras, you see the aircraft, the manoeuvres that they made and the impact, end of story, you can quote any information / data that you think backs up your obsession, the fact of the matter i could fly the jet and plant it where you want it, its not too hard to pull one of these bad boys into the paths taken and hit a target as wide as a building,

Originally posted by triplescorpio
you are denying that the planes everyone saw that day wasnt there ??

Sorry trplescorpio, I missed your above question when I replied.

No, I have never made that claim nor do Pilots For 9/11 Truth make that claim in any of their presentations.

clearly aircraft hit the World Trade Center. Many people saw it.

But, were they N612UA and N334AA? Were they Standard 767's? Were they controlled by hijackers who their best pilot couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots?

These are the questions govt agencies refuse to answer.

All data provided conflicts with the OS.

Hope this helps to clarify the argument we are discussing here.

Originally posted by weemadmental
Structural failure means a lot of things you know, these jets have a large safety margin, and can fail at different points,

Agreed -

The "large safety margin" is represented as the yellow caution range in the V-G diagram above.

Again, there has never been an aircraft positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots was controllable, or survived.

Many have exceeded their Vmo by 20-30-50-70 knots... Many of these aircraft suffered in flight structural failure. Some of these aircraft needed 30,000 feet to regain control. Many crashed.

150 knots over Vmo is absurd.

This is why there has not been one verified pilot to place his name on claims that such speeds over Vmo are "easy" or even possible, especially for alleged Hijackers who couldn't even control a 172 at 65 knots.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Tiffany appears to know a lot about aviation. Pretty impressive for a 23 year old chick that wears a leather corset.

Don't you think so Mr. Balsamo?

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Tiffany appears to know a lot about aviation. Pretty impressive for a 23 year old chick that wears a leather corset.

Thank you Six Sigma.

But I'm not 23 and I don't believe I ever claimed to be on ATS.

But if I did, I guess you can call me busted.

Certainly no one ever lied about their age? Certainly you have a source?



Would you like to discuss the topic or my age?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Would you like to discuss the topic or my age?

That's okay Roberta, no need to.

Have fun

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Would you like to discuss the topic or my age?

That's okay Roberta, no need to.

Have fun

Roberta?

Who is that?

My UserID says Tiffany.

Are you trying to say I'm Rob Balsamo?

I'm flattered. Thank you.

But if you (or the mods) look at the address in the FAA database for Mr. Balsamo at faa.gov, and my IP (for the mods), it is apparent that it is impossible we are the same person.

But I can see why you would not want to discuss the topic or provide a source for the alleged age claims of 23.

It's because you don't have such knowledge, nor source for your claims.

Let me guess, you also support the OS?

Thanks for playing.

Don't believe what Tiffany say?Then how about a real pilot that flew a couple of actual planes flown on 9/11?
www.youtube.com...

Let me guess..the pilots are "conspiracy theorists now?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by XxiTzYoMasterxX]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Again, there has never been an aircraft positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots was controllable, or survived.

Again, you can only say that if you have reviewed the performance of all aircraft in all flights in the entire history of manned avaition.

You make an absolute statement and then want other people to prove you wrong, yet you offer no evidence in supprt of your statement.