9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Well I am glad to see you finally admit that it is possible to fly a plane outside its envelope and hit something. Now that wasn't too hard was it? I said this because nowhere in your smug retort do you state that the plane is impossible to control and therefore is capable, with some difficulty, of being flown faster than the manual suggests. Please tell your buddies over at Pffffft that they can pack and go home now, the gig is over.

Originally posted by hooper
Well I am glad to see you finally admit that it is possible to fly a plane outside its envelope and hit something. Now that wasn't too hard was it? I said this because nowhere in your smug retort do you state that the plane is impossible to control and therefore is capable, with some difficulty, of being flown faster than the manual suggests.

Read again - (I'll bold and underline the parts you missed)

This is why limits are set based on flight and wind tunnel tests and why so many highly experienced Airline Capts and a NASA Engineer who designs high performance flight control systems put their names on their claims that such an aircraft would be impossible to control, and more speak out after becoming informed, as did the 5 or 6 Pilot/ATS'ers in this thread -

I wholeheartedly agree with the above.

Apparently you refused to click the links defining aircraft stability and control.

Do you still think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


No, no I insist.

You said it wasn't easy.

And I agreed.

And you thanked me for my honesty.

So it is settled law.

The task wasn't easy, but it wasn't impossible ergo, the official story is hereby confirmed by the good folks at Pilots for Truth.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
... such an aircraft would be impossible to control, ...

I wholeheartedly agree with the above.

Apparently you refused to click the links defining aircraft stability and control.

Do you still think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known?

You disagree with Deets, then, who said it was just "improbable"...

"A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability"

if Deets has changed his tune and is now calling it flat out "impossible" for an aircraft a) fly that speed, b) be controllable and c) was able to be pointed at a large, tall target visible from 100 miles away, then you need to get him to resubmit his brief op/ed piece in AIAA (they have not endorsed your position, have they? The buggers! What do THEY know about aviation, anyway!) and change "improbable" to "impossible".

I'm guessing he won't, because even someone like Deets understands that it is not impossible for a) those speeds to be achieved, b) the aircraft to be controllable and c) to hit two large, tall targets visible from 100 miles away.

I don't think the flight simulators will work or simulate actual control feedback once you exceed the safety limits of the aircraft. I hit the towers every time I try, flying in insane mode on Microsoft Flight Simulator.

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX


OKAY FOR ARGUEMENTS SAKE what is your reason for all this nonsense with the airplanes being different and ......

to what end do you think you have solved some great problem or are you simply a what iffer it my new 9/11 term for people who just throw random ideas out that could be true if all the stars align however are easily shown to be ignorant if not out right crazy . you seriously beleive the government whoever that is its not one person or small group disguised two planes to fly them into the largest building in north america to start a war that has renderd our country defunct financially i mean what is you motive for such a distorted veiw of reality.

its really just odd i mean why for what reason or have you just not made one up yet .

or is this gonna turn into a response of wheres my proof eh hem reality helloooo ....
or better yet some other predictable this is your debunker attitude mumbo jumbo there is no such thing as a 9/11 debunker there is only fact and fiction

[edit on 25-8-2010 by triplescorpio]

[edit on 25-8-2010 by triplescorpio]

Originally posted by trebor451
You disagree with Deets, then, who said it was just "improbable"...

Levels of Improbability,

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

snip

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

Dwain

Source

"To me, it's impossible, you know, any pilot that has been in a commercial jet would probably laugh if you said 510 knots." - Capt Rusty Aimer

Source

Need more?

Trebor, weedwhacker, why do you refuse to answer these questions?

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Do you feel it will be stable?

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

If you are really a pilot, why are you unable to plot your own V-G diagram when the V Speeds are known?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Do you feel the following V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I think the real problem is none of these guys want to even entertain the thought that they're making complete fools of themselves before a chick that looks like nothing they'll be bagging any time soon.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Notice it's the truthers who like to suck up to Tiffany as though "she" might actually let them "bag" her at some point...

And the guilty conscience responds immediately, first post after mine. You give yourself away too easy, Shady Trick.

If my post is your idea of trying to get laid... that speaks for itself, and maybe I understand what troubles you a little better now. Just goes to further show why you have such a phobia of her being who she says she is.

Why don't you accuse anyone else here of being Rob Balsamo? Do you look over your shoulder for Rob Balsamo when you go out into public too?

Is this the only poster here talking about aircraft, or Pilots for Truth, or the impossibility of controlling these aircraft so accurately in such extreme circumstances? No; there are many posters here saying the same thing. Are they all Rob Balsamo too? No, only the account with the picture of the chick on its avatar is Rob Balsamo to you. Why? For the reasons I just explained. You are insecure about what you're doing here and looking for easy justification so you can feel better about yourself.

And don't even get me started about you having no proof at all. Just like you have no proof of the government story, which you deny even exists (what better way to avoid having to prove it? ). Yet you have no problem demanding all of this from anyone else as if you would know when something's been proven or not. It's obvious from your lack of critical response to the government reports that you don't understand what proof is. Do you know what a hypocrite is? There is so much screwed up about your whole perspective that I don't even know where to begin. Actually I would probably begin with the blatantly obvious fact that the government account does indeed exist, and has absolutely nothing to prove it, because believing the opposite is probably the most stubborn and asinine belief of all.

I guess if your radar is off in one area then it's probably off for everything.

Since it's obvious that you're the one that's wrong, you're not doing yourself any service with this statement.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain




[edit on 25-8-2010 by triplescorpio]

Originally posted by hooper
No, no I insist.

You said it wasn't easy.

And I agreed.

And you thanked me for my honesty.

So it is settled law.

Thanks again for being honest.

It isn't easy. That is why so many Capts with thousands of hours in type say it's impossible and couldn't do it themselves. This is why they question 9/11.


So now that you admit it's not "easy" why do you still defend the govt story day and night, when the best "hijacker" couldn't even control a 172 at 65 knots? You think a 3% "probability" justifies your actions here on ATS? (and I assume JREF)

Do you still think it's impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V Speeds are known?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain




[edit on 25-8-2010 by triplescorpio]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


"??"

Trebor, weedwhacker, why do you refuse to answer these questions?

Won't speak for Trebor....but WTH are you talking about?!?

The answers are everywhere....problem is, YOU don't like them.

Sorry, Charlie....( not your real name, I know...just a phrase --- from a tuna commercial, BTW. Little joke? ).

Ah, forget it...probably over some people's heads.


SO...outside the cozy, sycophantic environment of the so-called website "[edited out name so as to not incur additional hits, but we all know what I'm talkin' about]" the REAL truth is difficult to bear, ain't it??

BTW...any increase in traffic over there, in Fantasy Land??

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


okay what do you mean government ??? you evert try and get three people to keep a secret two of them blab and the other one well they may not blab but often will allude thats a lota people to keep the biggest secret ever created but hey i cant wait to hear your answer

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


AH! Just how many is "so many" to you??

That is why so many Capts with thousands of hours in type say it's impossible and couldn't do it themselves.

"so many"! Pffffft! Pshaw!! Talk about over-exaggeration, and over-grandizing exaggeration...really exaggerated, ain't it??

Is that redundant enough? I didn't have a Thesaurus handy....


Funny....I get accused of not answering a "question" (a lie, BTW) but, MY question, regarding the HUGE numbers of REAL airline pilots who don't buy the 'junque' from that which shall not be named...Dumbledore!...oops, that's not right....grumble, grumble website, and its band of wannabes?

THAT is studiously ignored...wonder why? (rhetorical)....






[edit on 25 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

"??"

Trebor, weedwhacker, why do you refuse to answer these questions?

Won't speak for Trebor....but WTH are you talking about?!?

The answers are everywhere....problem is, YOU don't like them.

Can you please post the link to where you answered the questions?

You've been avoiding them for 7 pages now.

Here they are again.

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Do you feel it will be stable?

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

If you are really a pilot, why are you unable to plot your own V-G diagram when the V Speeds are known?

Do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram if the V-speeds are known?

Do you feel the following V-G diagram does not represent the V Speeds as set by Boeing for the 767? If so, which ones?

Originally posted by triplescorpio
you evert try and get three people to keep a secret two of them blab and the other one well they may not blab but often will allude thats a lota people to keep the biggest secret ever created but hey i cant wait to hear your answer

Who's blabbed about technology that remains classified today? Are you saying classified information doesn't really exist?

Who's blabbed about the exact function of nuclear bombs? There are thousands of them in existence yet to obtain a working plan for one is next to impossible and would get you into trouble real quick. Only a few people in the world are bound to know the intimate functioning of these things, and they AREN'T blabbing. I thought you said no one can keep a secret? Maybe YOU can't keep a secret.

If someone doesn't blab about something, I'm SURE you just assume it doesn't exist or never happened. And so you think everything that has happened, or that anyone knows, has already been blabbed about, and anyone can find out anything on their own. Which is complete nonsense and I have trouble understanding how someone can even think like this. If no one ever tells you something, you have no way in hell of knowing whether or not they're even keeping something from you!


So if you think it's impossible to keep a secret then I only ask you to retrieve me a working plan for a nuclear bomb. Put up or shut up flamethrower man.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Thanks again for being honest.

Your welcome.

It iosn;t easy. That is why so many Capts with thousands of hours in type say it's impossible and couldnt do it themselves.

Wow. Not very bright people are they? Just because something isn't easy does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is impossible. Imagine Orville and Wilbur standing on that sand dune.

"Think this is going to be easy"?

"Nope, not easy at all".

"Oh well, guess its impossible then, lets head home".

So now that you admit it's not "easy" why do you still defend the govt story day and night, when the best "hijacker" couldn't even control a 172 at 65 knots? You think a 3% "probability" justifies your actions here on ATS? (and I assume JREF)

Yep. Don't think any of it was easy. I know a lot of things that have happened even though they weren't easy. I also know the difference between difficult and impossible. Running a 4 minute mile is not easy, in fact it is very difficult, however, it is not impossible. Running a mile in one second is impossible. See the difference?

Do you still think it's impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V Speeds are known?

Yep, need the definition of the curves from the designer for the specific plane. You, could however, just fudge something you found on the internet and say you did it. Oh wait....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Funny....I get accused of not answering a "question" (a lie, BTW) but, MY question, regarding the HUGE numbers of REAL airline pilots who don't buy the 'junque' fromthat website, and its band of wannabes?

THAT is studiously ignored...wonder why? (rhetorical)....

Because you have never posted a list of these so-called "HUGE numbers of REAL airline pilots who don't buy the 'junque' fromthat website"

Again weedwhacker, there has not been one verified pilot willing to put his name on the claims that an aircraft which has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, is easy to control and stable for a flunky with zero time in type and couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

Will you be the first?

There are scores who feel the opposite, have gone on record, interviewed, video taped, and are verified. Including many pilots who have time in N644AA (AA77), N612UA (UA175), N591UA (UA93), and N334AA (AA11).

Need a link?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Oh dear. You'll notice I didn't say there wasn't a government "story" (simplistic term, but I suppose we'd best keep things simple.) I said that the notion of an "OS" that Truthers push is a straw man.

And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Tiffany isn't quite who she says she is. But I guess if you're used to swallowing bull# in hefty gulps you kind of lose the ability to smell it after a while.

Originally posted by hooper
Yep, need the definition of the curves from the designer for the specific plane. You, could however, just fudge something you found on the internet and say you did it. Oh wait....

Again hooper, thanks for demonstrating you know less than a student pilot.

Second line.