9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Oh for crying out loud...

Hooper, here, let me make this simple for you.

Out of all the flights posted on ATS by those who support the OS, in order to demonstrate some type of correlation to the south tower aircraft - there has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived.

Let us know when you find one.

So far, every aircraft that has been posted here on ATS by you and your obfuscation brigade -- which exceeded Vmo -- either lost control, suffered in flight structural failure, needed 30,000+ feet to recover, was grounded, and in the case of comparing apples to apples, EA990 suffered structural failure 5 knots above the manufacturers design limit for the 767.

Evidence for my argument -

Data, precedent and numerous verified experts



Evidence for your argument -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0


Let us know when you have some evidence to back up your claims that it was a standard 767, N612UA, to have impacted the south tower. All evidence provided so far conflicts with your claims.

Finally -

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

I understand why you wish to avoid this question now.




[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Out of all the flights posted on ATS by those who support the OS, in order to demonstrate some type of correlation to the south tower aircraft - there has never been one aircraft POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived.

I think Flight 175 did, and its posted here on ATS. I believe the data comes from the NTSB, you know, the real experts. Not the internet jockeys. Positively identified. No problem. Next.

To answer your question - yes its possible to plot a Vg diagram when the information is known - from the people who designed the aircraft, not the internet jockeys that do google searches and arts and crafts presentations.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

You, and this "150 knots" baloney, yet again???

Tell everyone, please. The EXACT site and authority that presents that figure.

B-767 VMO = 360 KIAS

ADD 150 kts, and the figure is now 510 KIAS. I asked, earlier. (not sure if there was an answer, it is painful to scan through posts...and that bright orange/red thing keeps popping up, like SPAM....ow! It hurts....)


I asked WHERE it is alleged that the UAL 175's ground speed was 510 knots. (The GS would be almost the same as airspeed, at that altitude).

weedwhacker, why are you arguing in support of the OS, when you haven't even reviewed their data?

This link has been provided more than 5 times in this thread. Please click it.

NTSB Radar Study

AND...refute THIS:

www.911myths.com...

Read this -

www.911myths.com...:Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11%2C_UA175.pdf

and this -

www.911myths.com...:Video_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--UA175.pdf

Let us know when you can find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots.

Thanks.

Originally posted by hooper
I think Flight 175 did, and its posted here on ATS. I believe the data comes from the NTSB, you know, the real experts. Not the internet jockeys. Positively identified. No problem. Next.

Thank you for demonstrating once again you have no evidence but an argument from incredulity.

Read these links regarding your "Positive Identification" claim.

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks

To answer your question - yes its possible to plot a Vg diagram when the information is known - from the people who designed the aircraft, not the internet jockeys that do google searches and arts and crafts presentations.

Pilots at pprune disagree with you. (So does ever other pilot on the planet who have been taught to plot their own V-G, starting with student pilots).

hooper - are you still saying the speeds plotted below are not representative of the speeds set by the manufacturer by definition?





Hooper - let us know when you find an aircraft which is POSITIVELY identified to exceed Vmo by 150 knots, their Maneuvering speed by 220 knots, pulled G's and remained controllable/stable or survived.

Here's the score -

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990
Numerous verified experts - Read this thread



Evidence for your argument -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Good luck Hooper.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Let us know when you can find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots.

Thanks.

This link has been provided more than 5 times in this thread. Please click it.

NTSB Radar Study

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Just curious - why is it you get to post data from the NTSB to prove your argument, but when I post data from the NTSB I am accused of "just believing what the government told me"?

Also, what is the exact number of your "numerous" experts? Please post that in terms of a ratio of all persons known to have the same expertise.

And what makes them experts? Their certification wouldn't happen to come from the "government" would it?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Let us know when you can find one aircraft which has been positively identified to exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots.

Thanks.

This link has been provided more than 5 times in this thread. Please click it.

NTSB Radar Study

Please familiarize yourself with the definition of "Positive Identification".

F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I., To Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

9/11 Aircraft 'black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent

Fbi Refuses To Confirm Identities, Of 4 Aircraft Used During 9/11 Attacks


Just like there has never been a steel skyscraper to collapse from fire prior to 9/11, there has never been an aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was controllable, nor survived.

Let us know when you have some evidence to support your claims. Start with providing part/serial numbers, the parts themselves perhaps, and maintenance logs.

Numerous highly trained and verified Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting.

reply to post by Doctor G


i have not read through the entire thread, and i am only commenting on the title here. i hope this has been mentioned prior to this post.

"9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it"

no where in pilot training school is there a class on how to fly a plane into a building.

i don't thinkg "real pilots" are trained on how to do this in pilot training.

WWII Japanese pilots being the closest exception i can think of.

just a thought i had i thought i would share,
et


[edit on 27-8-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by hooper
Just curious - why is it you get to post data from the NTSB to prove your argument, but when I post data from the NTSB I am accused of "just believing what the government told me"?

The aircraft that hit the south tower was never positively identified as N612UA (nor were any of the 4 aircraft used on 9/11), nor were they positively identified as standard 757/767's.

Let us know when you can provide proof of your claims.

Also, what is the exact number of your "numerous" experts? expertise.

I'm glad you asked. Keep asking, I'll keep posting.

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Captain Hadi Rizvi
Flying 43 years
Courses on Accident Investgation
22 Years with Pakistan Air Force as fighter -Total about 3500 Hrs,
Types Flown: T-6G; T-37; T-33; F-86F/E, F-5; MirageIII/V; MIG-15; MIG-19, QFI
21 Years with PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) ~13000 Hrs
Types Flown: F-27; Boeing 737; Boeing 747; Airbus 310

Lt Col David Gapp
Qualified Accident Investigator, Accident Board President from USAF Safety School
Total Flight Time: 3000
US Air Force, Continental Airlines
Military Service: 31 years
T-37, T-38, F-4, ATR-42 (one year w/ Continental Express), then went back into the Air Force

Need more? Click here -

pilotsfor911truth.org...

And what makes them experts? Their certification wouldn't happen to come from the "government" would it?

Many of them do. See above. And yet they question the OS.

What are your qualifications? Care to put your name on it as do the brave people above?

Hooper on page 18 -

Originally posted by hooper

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

Yes.

hooper on page 23 -

Originally posted by hooper
To answer your question - yes its possible to plot a Vg diagram when the information is known...

Now THAT's funny stuff!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Yes, just hilarious. Cutting people words off in mid-sentence is, of course, the refuge of a scoundrel. Slowly starting to see those true color coming through now.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Oh for crying out loud...
EA990 suffered structural failure 5 knots above the manufacturers design limit for the 767.
[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

It had loose bolts, for crying out loud. I showed you a much older plane that went past the speed of sound and survived, you ignored it. We are talking about pilot ability in this tread anyway.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Numerous highly trained and verified Aircraft Accident Investigators are waiting.

That "numerous" would be what? 1? 3? 5?


Sorry, the world has passed you by. The planes have all been identified to everyone's satisfaction. The victims have been laid to rest as best we can. There is no doubt outside of marginal conspiracy websites.

The NTSB has said that Flight 175 flew into the World Trade Center towers on the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001. All aboard persihed in the crash including the hijackers. The plane was travelling about 510 mph ground speed based on radar tracking. It is done. Are they wrong?

Then prove they are wrong. They are all experts as well, I would assume far more learned in the matter of plane crashes then you or anyone at Pfffft. Keep spamming your webiste, we all know thats what you're here to do. Sell that advertising space. Make a couple of bucks. Just remember where the money is really coming from.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Yes, just hilarious. Cutting people words off in mid-sentence is, of course, the refuge of a scoundrel. Slowly starting to see those true color coming through now.

Oh please.

You thought plotting a V-G diagram was impossible if the V-speeds were known.

I posted the V-Speeds from the Boeing TCDS, you still thought it was impossible.

I posted a book excerpt from the Illustrators Guide To Aerodynamics to show you how to plot your own "curves", you still thought it was impossible.

You only recently changed your tune when you saw the link I posted from pprune.

Anyone taking the time to read through this thread will understand your stubborn disposition regarding almost every point made, and then your subsequent backpedaling. I have NEVER seen one who blindly supports the OS admit they were wrong.

You fool no one hooper.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Tonight, attractive women will not ignore me.

Originally posted by hooper
The NTSB has said that Flight 175 flew into the World Trade Center towers on the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001.

The NTSB said that, because that's what they were told.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

Source -
www.ntsb.gov...

The FBI never positively identified any of the aircraft. See links above.

Again hooper -


Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990
Numerous verified experts - Read this thread



Evidence for your argument -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claims.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

You fool no one hooper.

And I am damn proud of it because unlike you, I do not mean to fool anyone.

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Oh for crying out loud...
EA990 suffered structural failure 5 knots above the manufacturers design limit for the 767.
[edit on 27-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

It had loose bolts, for crying out loud.

Wrong -

EA990 lost the left engine - wing panels - horizontal stab skin and more.

That is a bit more than "bolts".

Read the report.

www.ntsb.gov...

Losing such pieces changes the whole stability profile of an aircraft, which makes it VERY difficult to control.

Learn the four forces of flight -
www.grc.nasa.gov...

So, do you think a hijacker who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, could control a Boeing 767, 150 knots over Vmo, zero time in type, to hit a target with a 25' margin for error? When a NEWER 767 couldn't even hold together at 5 knots over the manufacturer set design limit?

Care to put your name on it?

EA990 was 6-7 years newer than N612UA.

Listen to Capt Rusty Aimer who has flight time in N612UA -
Click

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
Precedent - EA990
Numerous verified experts - Read this thread

So the evidence for your argument that the NTSB data regarding the speed of Flight 175 is false is (drumroll please):

NTSB data!!!!!!!

You can't make this up.

Oh, and of course the bad old FBI came in and told the NTSB how to read radar data.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

From the flight data I looked at, you are right, they were flying almost completely out of control. This still does not mean that they could not hit the towers. The data may have swayed the pilots for truth, but I am still undecided. Sorry, but still not enough past the red line for me to say impossible. People have made nice landings with 172s when the pilot died and they had no experience flying.