9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by hooper
This is pretty much your last chance, if you try and dodge it again it's pretty much going to be a sure thing that you are afraid to take your "theories" outside the safe realm of conspiracies forums and websites.

Pot,
meet Kettle.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Are you saying Vd is not the end of the Flight Envelope V-G diagram for every aircraft on this planet?

No Tiffany that's not it.

Here's another hint: It's FUNNY and makes you look like an idiot. When you find a mistake that is FUNNY and makes you look like an idiot, that will be it.

Look at your graph again. It is on the scale of 11.2 Gs

It's like the N number in this photo. Been there all along but you never saw it.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by earthdude
Yes, it was modified. No, it was not much stronger than a modern airliner.

Wow - Thanks for posting that!

You just proved an airliner needs only a little bit of modification to go A LOT faster.

Can you spot if there were any leading edge mods in a youtube video of the south tower impact?

No, you can't. Neither can I. Nor can anyone else.

Also keep in mind that Mach 1 at the altitude tested for the DC-8 (~50,000 feet) has an true airspeed of roughly 568, this translates into an equivalent airspeed of 221 knots.

This is roughly 135 knots BELOW Vmo for the DC-8.

Feel free to calculate it yourself -

www.csgnetwork.com...

www.luizmonteiro.com...

The question still stands -

Please let us know when you find one STANDARD aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots prior to 9/11, was stable/controllable, and survived.

Thanks!

(Nice try though, and again, thanks for bringing it to my attention)

I mentioned it twice in the other thread. I am looking for unmodified commercial aircraft that have exceeded the speed of sound and survived, I know they have. Yes, it would be hard to control. Telling me the speed of sound is 221 knots at that altitude is wrong.

Originally posted by hooper
Well, maybe I am not making myself clear. The question is

"Does anyone here feel that flight data for Flight 175 on September 11, 2001 as presented by the NTSB, specifically the terminal speed of 510 is physically impossible for that type of aircraft at that altitude"?


Remember - this is all about 9/11 and conspiracies. You've got to get flight 175 in that question somewhere - what's the problem?

hooper, again, you are unfamiliar with the term objective.

Including a Flight number not only invites bias, but also emotion, especially for 9/11. I suppose you disagree.

Why don't you go over there and ask them if they feel any airplane will be controllable/stable at 150 knots over Vmo?

What are you afraid of?

You are afraid of not finding one pilot who will agree. That is why you do not have one pilot, nor data set, to support your claims.

All you have is - "Because the government told me so..."

Also, please post your Vg diagram and get a general opinion if it is applicable.

We already know it is accurate. Read here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why don't you post it at pprune and see if it represents the V-Speeds. Start with this guy...

www.pprune.org...

What are you afraid of?

Again hooper, if the above V-G is not accurate, when are you going to inform Boeing their V-Speeds are inaccurate on their TCDS? When are you going to edit Wiki to let them know Vd is not the end of the Flight Envelope? When are you going to inform every flight school that they have been teaching it wrong?

What are you afraid of?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Including a Flight number not only invites bias, but also emotion, especially for 9/11. I suppose you disagree.

Well, if you want to talk about aviation in general why are you posting here at a conspiracy forum and why do you keep posting links to a 9/11 conspiracy website? Just ask the question. Flight 175 - was it possible?

Why don't you go over there and ask them if they feel any airplane will be controllable/stable at 150 knots over Vmo?

Because I don't care about your semantic evasions, "controllable"? "stable"? Those are your contriavances, ask the question - Flight 175 - was it possible?

It is now pretty obvious you know what the answers are going to be - yes, of course it was possible. Which pretty much makes your little website a hoax. And not a victimless one either.

I found reports of Spitfires and Mustangs going Mach 1 during WWII. I'll see if they went into the pretty red zone. No I won't, I am sure they went off the graph. They landed safe. There, my point is made, I win. HA!

This was talked about some time ago, and I think the article is relevant to the discussion:

www.lookingglassnews.org...

I'll admit, I am no pilot so I have no idea what skill set needs to be possessed to pull off what these guys "apparently" did. Food for thought though.....

Originally posted by hooper
Well, if you want to talk about aviation in general why are you posting here at a conspiracy forum and why do you keep posting links to a 9/11 conspiracy website?

Answered here -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just ask the question. - Flight 175 - was it possible?

So you rather have a response based on emotion and bias than objective science?

Just go over there and ask the question - Do you feel an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is controllable/stable?

What are you afraid of?

Why don't you go over there and ask them if they feel any airplane will be controllable/stable at 150 knots over Vmo?

Because I don't care about your semantic evasions, "controllable"? "stable"? Those are your contriavances[sic],

No they aren't. They are well defined. I gave you this link the last time you made the same claim. You may want to click on it this time.

www.sti.nasa.gov...

It is now pretty obvious you know what the answers are going to be - yes, of course it was possible.

It is pretty obvious why you do not have one expert on your side supporting your claims that an aircraft can exceed it's Vmo by 150 knots and remain controllable and stable, nor any data to show as precedent.

Again - "Because my government told me so..." is not evidence for anything. Let us know when you get some.

Which pretty much makes your little website a hoax. And not a victimless one either.

Which website would that be?

Are you claiming I'm the owner of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, Rob Balsamo?

Again, I'm flattered -

- but since it appears you have a habit of not reading thoroughly, you may want to read the warnings from the mods regarding such claims.

ENOUGH!!



You all, every single one of you, will stop the "identity" accusations. I don't, nor do the vast majority of members, give a flying damn who you may or may not be out in the "world".

You will address each other by your ATS screen name, or not at all...

...if you can not do this, don't post in the forum.

Source - www.abovetopsecret.com...

hooper - let us know when you get some evidence or a verified expert to support your theories.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by earthdude
I found reports of Spitfires and Mustangs going Mach 1 during WWII. I'll see if they went into the pretty red zone. No I won't, I am sure they went off the graph. They landed safe. There, my point is made, I win. HA!

So you make claims without source.

I know many WWII aircraft that went above their Critical Mach (which was below Mach 1) and entered into severe mach tuck that was uncontrollable. Many crashed, many needed 10's of thousands of feet to recover.

Do you know what Mach Tuck is?

Apparently not.

You fail.

reply to post by jeffiriff


Interesting article, But according to what Tiffany say's, It is possible to takeoff fly and land a passenger aircraft with only flight simulator practice.

Thomas Salme .....

He practiced on a flight simulator until he thought he was ready to fly, and then printed a fake pilot's license at home. He got a job at European airline Air One, and spent 13 years flying passengers around Europe until being caught in March. The heavy hand of justice: a $2,500 fine and a one-year grounding.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

So you rather have a response based on emotion and bias than objective science?

Yep. Lets see what the pilots say about Flight 175 and was it possible. While you're at it, ask them their general opinions about Pilots for 9/11 truth. You seem to place a high degree of confidence in them as an unimpeachable source for professional opinions, ask the pilots on the other site what they think. Just curious.

Just go over there and ask the question - Do you feel an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is controllable/stable?

Great question! Tell me again how it relates to 9/11? This forum is here to discuss issues regarding 9/11 and I would like to keep on-topic, OK?

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by jeffiriff

 

Interesting article, But according to what Tiffany say's, It is possible to takeoff fly and land a passenger aircraft with only flight simulator practice.

Thomas Salme .....

He practiced on a flight simulator until he thought he was ready to fly, and then printed a fake pilot's license at home. He got a job at European airline Air One, and spent 13 years flying passengers around Europe until being caught in March. The heavy hand of justice: a $2,500 fine and a one-year grounding.

Yes, over a year and a half of sim time, and then having a Captain sitting next to him during flights holding his hand to gain more experience.

How much 757/767 Sim time did the hijackers have? Source?

What was the name of the Training Capts sitting next to them during their kamikaze missions?

How much experience did they have flying an aircraft at 150 knots over Vmo?

Wow, the OS Supporter arguments are so transparent.

Reach much?

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by hooper
Lets see what the pilots say about Flight 175 and was it possible. While you're at it, ask them their general opinions about Pilots for 9/11 truth.

Let see if they think an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is controllable or stable?

Oh wait, it's already been done. Read up thread.

(you just don't like the answer)

hooper - have you found a verified pilot to support your claims yet? Any data?

Didn't think so.

You seem to place a high degree of confidence in them as an unimpeachable source for professional opinions, ask the pilots on the other site what they think. Just curious.

You seem to be afraid of an objective opinion based on data and rather appeal to emotion. You know that is a logical fallacy, right?

Perhaps you don't as you use them often.

Just go over there and ask the question - Do you feel an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is controllable/stable?

Great question! Tell me again how it relates to 9/11?

Full Film - 9/11 World Trade Center Attack

Click it and learn.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Wow, the OS Supporter arguments are so transparent.

Reach much?

And yet here we are nine years later, and no one is buying what you are trying to sell. No huge groundswell of professional pilots professing their collective outrage over the "impossibility" of the OS. No grass roots movement to open a new investigation, in fact, outside of a few conspiracy forums on the internet all these arguments pretty much melt into the ether. Don't see reporters lining up to get interviews with reps from "Pilots for Truth", in fact I can't even get you to go on another site and ask what other pilots think of them!

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Salme said: "I'd train there for two or three hours at a time at least 15 to 20 times over one and a half years.

That's some where between 30 and 60 hrs of simulator time before getting in the seat and fooling the captain. Not a lot.

Did you find your graph faux pas yet Tiffany ?

Originally posted by hooper
And yet here we are nine years later, and no one is buying what you are trying to sell.

I haven't tried to sell anything here. Matter of fact, all the links I've provided are free.

However, there are not many buying the OS and the list is growing.

patriotsquestion911.com...

You should check it out. Maybe you know some of them.

Unlike you hooper - "Because the government told me so" is not evidence for critical thinking individuals.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Just go over there and ask the question - Do you feel an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is controllable/stable?

Great question! Tell me again how it relates to 9/11?

Full Film - 9/11 World Trade Center Attack

Click it and learn.

I am so suprised! Your response to a real question is a link to your favorite webiste! Just tell me in your own words, exactly what the link is between your question and 9/11.

Originally posted by waypastvne

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Salme said: "I'd train there for two or three hours at a time at least 15 to 20 times over one and a half years.

That's some where between 30 and 60 hrs of simulator time before getting in the seat and fooling the captain. Not a lot.

Please show us a record of 30-60 hours of 757/767 time logged for the "hijackers".

Please provide the name of the Training Capts sitting next to them during their kamikaze missions. Clearly you haven't heard the term IOE.

Please provide a record of their experience flying an aircraft at 150 knots over Vmo.

Did you find your graph faux pas yet Tiffany ?

Did you figure out the definition of Vd yet?

Clearly not.

Here, let me help you.

Google -

Flight Envelope - Federal Aviation Administration, FAR.23 Appendix A Figure A-4



[edit on 30-8-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Just go over there and ask the question - Do you feel an aircraft which exceeds it's Vmo by 150 knots is controllable/stable?

Great question! Tell me again how it relates to 9/11?

Scroll to the bottom of this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

hooper - you ok? Need glasses?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I did scroll and guess what - more links to the website!

Now use YOUR words - how does your question relate to 9/11?

If I wanted the opinions of the people on that website I would go to that website - but I want to hear it in your words here.

How does your question relate to 9/11?