9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Again, comparing AAL 587, Egypt 990, to UAL 175???

Not even close...THIS is the sort of nonsense that destroys the "truth pilots" crediblity.

BUT....that is EXACTLY the sorts of tactics that tend to work, for the laypersons who lap up the bogus "info" from that site, and the way they spin it.

Here....actual information about American 587: www.ntsb.gov...

(If you'd like I can tell you what happened there --- from a real airline pilot's perspective and knowledge).

Here's the full report on Egypt Air 990, as well:
www.ntsb.gov...

I suggest people take the time to read those thoroughly, rather than relying on the "truth pilots" ridiculous, and altered takes and "spin" on the facts.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not even close...THIS is the sort of nonsense that destroys the "truth pilots" crediblity[sic].

And yet the score remains after 34 pages -

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
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 -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Let us know when you will get some evidence for your argument.

... from a real airline pilot's perspective and knowledge

You keep claiming you are a "real" airline pilot, yet you don't know that a V-G diagram can be plotted if the V-Speeds are known,

You don't know the basic fundamentals of a V-G.

You had no clue where the 510 knot speed claim came from.

You put your foot in your mouth when you claimed the 510 knot claim came from the "nuts at P4T" after I posted links to the NTSB.

You think your examples of a 747, 727, 737 correlate to a 767 exceeding Vmo by 150 knots, when you didn't even realize all those aircraft lost control at only 50-70 knots over their Vmo, many needing 30,000+ feet to recover, many shed parts.

You ignore a better "apple to apple" comparison with EA990, a 767 which suffered in flight structural failure at 5 knots into the red "Structural Failure" zone above the Vd line.

You STILL have no clue that the EAS calculations take into consideration Compressibility.

You ignore the following V-G diagram, claiming it's "fake", but cannot provide one of your own -

You claim the following V speeds are not representative of a 767, even after giving you the Boeing 767 Type Certificate Data Sheet numerous times.



You claim the above V-G is from a P-51, until I had to provide the correct P-51 diagram -






weedwhacker - you have failed time and time again.

Here's the full report on Egypt Air 990, as well:
www.ntsb.gov...

Thanks for providing it once again weedwhacker, but it's not the "Full Report". This one is -

www.ntsb.gov...

I've provided the above link numerous times in this thread for you and your OS supporters. Hopefully you and your obfuscation brigade will read it this time.

Others can click here to view the comparisons made by real and VERIFIED pilots, including a current JetBlue Captain, Aeronautical Engineer and former USAF Aircraft Accident Investigation Board President, 757/767 Captain's from United and American Airlines, who actually place their names and faces to their claims (they also have actual command time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 - all 4),

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack,

I suggest people take the time to read those thoroughly...

I agree. Please review all the data and information thoroughly, rather than relying on some anonymous guy on ATS who claims he is a "real pilot", yet cannot understand the basics of a V-G.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

The most important line from EA 990 NTSB report is this one:

The results of the Safety Board's examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent

Which makes this statement from PFT an outright lie.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

EA 990 started its final decent 53 seconds after peak speed. That is not a few seconds. During that 53 seconds EA 990 executed a 9000 ft engine off altitude gain. The actual aircraft break up was probably closer to 2 minutes after peak speed.

Originally posted by waypastvne
EA 990 started its final decent 53 seconds after peak speed. That is not a few seconds. During that 53 seconds EA 990 executed a 9000 ft engine off altitude gain. The actual aircraft break up was probably closer to 2 minutes after peak speed.

At 0150:08, as the airplane passed through about 30,800 feet msl, the airplane exceeded its maximum operating airspeed (0.86 Mach), and the Master Warning alarm sounded. The maximum rate of descent recorded during the dive was about 39,000 fpm at 0150:19, as the airplane descended through about 24,600 feet msl. At 0150:23, the airspeed reached its peak calculated value of 0.99 Mach, as the airplane descended through about 22,200 feet msl.

No secondary radar returns were received from the accident airplane after the last data were recorded by the FDR at 0150:36.64.

Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty

In other words, you nor the NTSB know exactly when it started. The aircraft lost ATC transponder and FDR (and CVR) power at 13 seconds after peak speed.

This indicates structural failure.

You need to read the full report.

Unless of course you can provide a reason for the electrical power loss to essential items on the 767. Shutting down the engines will not cause such a loss of power as the HDG will power these items.

Again -

Seven primary radar returns from the airplane were recorded during the second dive; the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors, which introduces significant uncertainty into the performance calculations during the second dive. However, the data indicate that the airplane impacted the ocean about 0152:30, with an average descent rate during the second dive of about 20,000 fpm.

First, what data gave them the water impact time if they admit in the same paragraph their data are "subject to potentially large errors"?

Are you aware the same type of radar data shows AA77 close to 50,000 feet at points along it's route? The FDR shows it never got above 35,000. In other words, the "second dive" is based on pure speculation on data that is "subject to potentially large errors".

Second, "Seven primary radar returns from the airplane.." is less than a minute and a half. 12 seconds per sweep.

Next, how can you claim "The actual aircraft break up was probably closer to 2 minutes after peak speed" when the NTSB claims the aircraft broke apart prior to water and the water impact time cannot even be accurately determined based on data which is "subject to potentially large errors"? Not to mention it was less than 1.5 mins after peak speed based on radar sweep?

Finally, we know for a fact that the 767 cannot reach 510 knots. 425 EAS is all that was able in a steep dive. We know the aircraft suffered in flight structural failure after reaching it's peak speed, in a dive, in thicker air, prior to water impact. EA990 never got past 425 EAS. So if you claim the in flight structural failure happened later, all you are doing is claiming the structural failure happened at less than it's peak speed of 425 EAS (calculations of which take into consideration compressibility). Neither are in your favor and your blind support of the OS.

Let us know when you find one aircraft which exceeded it's Vmo by 150, pulled G's, was controllable/stable, and survived.

waypastvne, were you able to understand the V-G diagram yet after this post?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You should really view the above presentation from P4T. It's all covered.



[edit on 2-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by waypastvne

Which makes this statement from PFT an outright lie.

Along with just about everything else "they" have put out, historically.

"11.2 Gs Pullout", at the Pentagon?

"Flight Deck Door" fiasco, again AAL 77.

AND, this continued spamming of a mashed-up V-G diagram, merely fouind online, and the number scale (for airspeeds) inserted to "match" the Boeing 767.

Of course, that is designed only (along with snide and not-so-veiled insults) to fool those who are NOT pilots....along with that aforementioned pattern of insults. Demonstrates a certain childishness, it appears.

For clarity --- there is a REASON that the "V-G diagram" applies to certain category of fixed wing airplanes, and is TOO SIMPLIFIED for Transport Category machines.

I have yet to see the "PfT" representative realize that, although I've mentioned it numerous times.

Further, it is a "red herring", in any case, since it relates to not only speed, but also G FORCES....again, my points on that aspect completely ignored/brushed aside. Instead, INSULTS (and spamming) or an irrelavant chart, in this instance, for the "argument" put forth from "PfT".

I could go on....but it is so obvious to the rest of us, need I bother?

(OR...should I scare up the AIRBUS A-380 flight test video?? Looks like it was a first-time event, to have the documentary camera along for that particular high-speed test. "First time" for a camera crew documenting it, I mean. A bit of promotional PR from Airbus, no doubt).

AND, heavily 'dramatized' to a certain extent. SO< that video has been fodder, and used inappropriately and with a lack of understanding (or in an intentionally deceptive manner) to FURTHER hornswoggle the "PfT" sycophants, and others who don't have the ability to see through their baloney.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Not only was it in a "tight turn", it was pulling out from a dive, at 500+ knots. It was traveling 85 knots more, and pulling more G's, than EA990, a 767 which suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

Now check the data. I've given you the links numerous times.

So let me ask you a question because I'm not sure where you are going with all this... I cannot tell you at what point things become impossible, but we can basically assume at some high speed.

You have posted my 500+ 2 or 3 times now as if it was some kind of revelation, but like anybody else it is a guess with the logic that at some speed things would be too much. Now if I posted that the plane would fly tight turns at 650 knots would you have reposted it too many times? I would think not and so this proves you pick and choose what you just want to hear to meet you theory…i.e. being bias.

From you post I see that radar etc has a record of this plane doing all that the official report says it did, and you are saying both are wrong, so how is the ATC data/radar wrong, or disputed?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"11.2 Gs Pullout", at the Pentagon?

Click and Learn

"Flight Deck Door" fiasco, again AAL 77.

Please provide data which shows the Cockpit door open for a hijack to occur. So far, your only evidence has been "because the govt told me so...". The data shows the door closed.

AND, this continued spamming of a mashed-up V-G diagram, merely fouind[sic] online, and the number scale (for airspeeds) inserted to "match" the Boeing 767.

Of course, that is designed only (along with snide and not-so-veiled insults) to fool those who are NOT pilots...

Seems the pilots at pprune don't have any objections. Perhaps you can go inform them that it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the speeds are known?

www.pprune.org...

Good luck!

along with that aforementioned pattern of insults. Demonstrates a certain childishness, it appears.

It appears you are the only one slinging insults here.

For clarity --- there is a REASON that the "V-G diagram" applies to certain category of fixed wing airplanes, and is TOO SIMPLIFIED for Transport Category machines.

And yet you have failed to tell us this so-called "reason" for more than 22 pages. Nor have you been able to provide a V-G of your own to dispute it.

Further, it is a "red herring", in any case, since it relates to not only speed, but also G FORCES....again, my points on that aspect completely ignored/brushed aside.

Wrong again weedwhacker -

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rest of your post was off topic and mostly insults so I won;t bother to address it.


Let us know when you get some evidence for your blind support of the OS.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I think you might have missed yet another of "Tiffany's" lies....or distortions, pick a term....

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Not only was it in a "tight turn", it was pulling out from a dive, at 500+ knots. It was traveling 85 knots more, and pulling more G's, than EA990, a 767 which suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

I missed the earlier discussion, so glad you pulled out that quote.

( I notice, also, the continued mis-use of "EAS". The "equivalent" airspeed concept is primarily for engineers to use, in their computations in the design/flight testing phases. "Calibrated" or "indicated" airspeed is more commonly used by REAL pilots.... )

Have a quibble with the "tight turn" reference....I mean, WE ALL CAN SEE the video, right? Someone calculate the bank angle....I estimate, just from viewing, at no more than ~35 degrees (and that's being generous, for the "Truth" crowd's benefit).

Now, further....we can surely determine a rate of descent, and the subsquent leveling off, and realize that it DID NOT achieve any "excesive" g forces, in such a maneuver.

I have routinely see between 3,000 to 5,000 fpm down, in a POWER OFF (Flight Idle) descent, when 'pushing' it close to the barber pole. (Instrument indicating range only goes to 6,000 fpm). All with a not uncomfortable deck angle, just a few degrees below the horizon.

Somehow, each time, have managed to survive the level off, haven't over-stressed any airframes, nor have caused any Flight Attendants panty hose to bunch down at their ankles, from the "G-forces". IN FACT, the level-off is SO ordinary, that no one even knows....it is that natural, and NOT any sort of "High stress" g-load maneuver.

Of course, since I am "anonymous" here (although ATS staff and owners can vouch for me) MY 'word' may be insufficient.

Therefore, I happened to find THIS discussion, by a Northwest Airlines Flight Department management team, and ALPA Design and Operations Group Director. (Recall, that NWA has been merged with Delta, now..). They are getting the first-hand look at their new B767-400 (We got ours, at MY airline, in 2002).

A snippet of interest:

On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots. The time from start of the descent to level-off at 11,000 feet was just 3 minutes. Very impressive, particularly since we flew the maneuver by interfacing with automation, rather than manually.

Now, anyone who has ACTUALLY flown the B-767 (any of the models) will not be astonished by this....ONLY those who wish to further their agenda, and fake "info" (for reasons that still remain unknown) seem to be unable/inexperienced/deceitful as to this reality.

~~~~~~~

Forgot the link, for the above snippet:

cf.alpa.org...




















[edit on 2 September 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So let me ask you a question because I'm not sure where you are going with all this... I cannot tell you at what point things become impossible...

Your words speak otherwise...

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If you suggest they were in some kind of tight turn to hit the towers at 500 plus knots then now we are talking structure integrity of the wings plus Gs forces and finally just aircraft/pilot capabilities. This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish.

It just so happens numerous verified pilot agree with you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You have posted my 500+ 2 or 3 times now as if it was some kind of revelation, but like anybody else it is a guess with the logic that at some speed things would be too much. Now if I posted that the plane would fly tight turns at 650 knots would you have reposted it too many times?

I would ask you if you would be willing to place your name to such a claim because numerous verified pilots disagree with you, and you will be the first to disagree with them.

From you post I see that radar etc has a record of this plane doing all that the official report says it did, and you are saying both are wrong, so how is the ATC data/radar wrong, or disputed?

Does radar positive identify an aircraft as a standard 767?

No, it only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I missed the earlier discussion, so glad you pulled out that quote.

Have a quibble with the "tight turn" reference....I mean, WE ALL CAN SEE the video, right? Someone calculate the bank angle....I estimate, just from viewing, at no more than ~35 degrees (and that's being generous, for the "Truth" crowd's benefit).

Now, further....we can surely determine a rate of descent, and the subsquent[sic] leveling off, and realize that it DID NOT achieve any "excesive"[sic] g forces, in such a maneuver.

Try reading the radar data for the last several miles prior to impact.

Or just watch the P4T presentation.

( I notice, also, the continued mis-use of "EAS". The "equivalent" airspeed concept is primarily for engineers to use, in their computations in the design/flight testing phases. "Calibrated" or "indicated" airspeed is more commonly used by REAL pilots.... )

Add the definition of EAS to the list of things weedwhacker isn't familiar with...

On the initial pitchover, the rate of descent increased to 9,600 feet per minute at 7½ degrees nose down, then slowed to 5,300 feet per minute as the airspeed stabilized at 353 knots.

Pssst, weedwhacker, you have another 157 knots to go to support your claims.



[edit on 2-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Does radar positive identify an aircraft as a standard 767?

No, it only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

What? A radar "only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan"?

Sure you want to stick by that?

A flight plan has absolutely nothing to do with the waves a radar sends out and receives back and the data that is interpreted from that radar return - in the case of AA11 and UAL 175, raw radar data returns since the transponders had been set to stand-by mode.

Another keeper from Tiffany!

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Does radar positive identify an aircraft as a standard 767?

No, it only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

What? A radar "only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan"?

Sure you want to stick by that?

A flight plan has absolutely nothing to do with the waves a radar sends out and receives back and the data that is interpreted from that radar return - in the case of AA11 and UAL 175, raw radar data returns since the transponders had been set to stand-by mode.

Another keeper from Tiffany!

Oh for crying out loud...



too funny..

ATC/radar only identifies a target by what is put into a flight plan.

Better?

trebor, again, let us know when you find positive identification for any of the aircraft used on 9/11, proof they were standard aircraft as manufactured by Boeing, any verified expert willing to support your claims, and/or any evidence for your blind support of the OS.

"Because the govt told me so..." isn't working out too well for you.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If you suggest they were in some kind of tight turn to hit the towers at 500 plus knots then now we are talking structure integrity of the wings plus Gs forces and finally just aircraft/pilot capabilities. This would quickly go from not too difficult to impossible to accomplish.

Ok... quantify tight? Weedwacker suggests 35 degree and I can’t say that is tight in the terms you are looking for. As I say above we all know an aircraft can go from easy to out of control, do you know when that point is reached? I don't...


If I produce a doc of more pilots that disagree with you do I win? ;p

Does radar positive identify an aircraft as a standard 767?

No, it only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan.

Well kind of..in a way..maybe not....

Some track the actual plane AND Transponder which in this case they would of have one, and maybe they might have changed to 7600.

Does it show a 767 on their screen...no, would an airport ATC controller have seen and controlled their takeoff and departure...yes, would they have been in constant contact prior to the hijack..Yes...

So at what point was the switch with one plane magically appearing in place where the other plane magically disappears? Alien help?




[edit on 2-9-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Others can click here to view the comparisons made by real and VERIFIED pilots, blah blah blah

You are pretty quick with posting these "qualifications" - multiple times - of your club members. How about ponying up some of your own street cred, Tiffany?

How about YOUR FAA cert? How many hours do you have in these aircraft? What qualifications do YOU have to make all these claims you make? What airlines have YOU flown with? What aircraft have you flown?

I'll start, to make it a bit easier. I do not have a FAA certification. Never wanted one, never needed one, never applied for one, never had any use for one. I also don't have about 50 or so other certifications - plumbing, electrical, etc. I do have 1250 hours in military aircraft (8 at last count) and have worked in and around aviation in various capacities for most of the past 25 years.

How about you, Tiff? Ever pulled 10 gs? Ever gone mach 2 (Concorde doesn't count) ? Ever do the stick-and-throttle thing in a military jet? How about a non-military jet?

[edit on 2-9-2010 by trebor451]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
If I produce a doc of more pilots that disagree with you do I win? ;p

If you produce just one verified pilot willing to put his name to a claim that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, pulling G's, for a supposed 'pilot' with zero time in type and had less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, I will be surprised.

You're not even willing to put your own name to such an absurd claim.

Let me know when you find one.

@trebor -

If I told you I had 25,000+ hours flying for a Major Airline, have numerous Carrier landings from the front seat, and flew the Space Shuttle, would it change the following score? No, it wouldn't.

Evidence for my argument -

Data - NTSB, Boeing, Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
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 -

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Let us know when you will get some evidence for your argument.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

reply to post by Xtrozero


Interesting post, but where did you get the idea that thousands of people in our government would be needed to pull off a false flag. Many debunkers on here are convinced that 19 mystery men did 911.

I did a thread sometime ago showing only a handful of specialist in aviation, and specialist using un-paten engineered military chemical wireless demolition such as super na-nothermite engineered by the military industrial industry, in weapons manufacturing.

These things are very possible but to even suggest that thousands of people would have to be involved to pull off 911, is only a way to silence and ridicule the Truthers for making such a statement such as inside job.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

If you produce just one verified pilot willing to put his name to a claim that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, pulling G's, for a supposed 'pilot' with zero time in type and had less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots, I will be surprised.

Nice to keep adding...its like that used car salesman who says hey the car is 500 bucks and it ends up 5000 bucks in the end.

Might as well say it was a six year old who can't ride a bike pulling 10 Gs at 700 knots, but you know I think we are not that far from hearing that from you.

It doesn't matter if it was a C-135, 767 or some other big jet with 10,000 hour pilots at the controls, the planes hit and the towers fell. You need to start with that since that is a fact and everything else your theory.

Originally posted by impressme

Interesting post, but where did you get the idea that thousands of people in our government would be needed to pull off a false flag. Many debunkers on here are convinced that 19 mystery men did 911.

I did a thread sometime ago showing only a handful of specialist in aviation, and specialist using un-paten engineered military chemical wireless demolition such as super na-nothermite engineered by the military industrial industry, in weapons manufacturing.

These things are very possible but to even suggest that thousands of people would have to be involved to pull off 911, is only a way to silence and ridicule the Truthers for making such a statement such as inside job.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by impressme]

People are connected to people who are connected to people and so on.

Some company(s) had to make all the needed materials (many people)l, it had to be moved and placed into the towers (over a very long period of time)...many people. Multi false flags had to be formed...like terrorist ...many people, the real hits on the buildings by military...many people, command control throughout...many people. Clean-up of all the nasty loose ends, like 2 airliners and all the people to name just a little...many people. Not to add a continued cover up of a flawless operation, well except for really stupid mistakes that would make anyone of these many people to hand slap their forehead... Just off the top of my head and I'm sure not so simple in design.

Bottom line is 19 people would sure get around....

It’s like chem trails...it all sounds so good until you realize it would take factories all over America shipping 10,000s barrels of chemicals to airports and building 1000s of systems in secret on the airliners...etc..etc... gets rather stupid after awhile...

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Go though the 1000 plus posts about the fake moon landings and you will see a very similar pattern to the truthers, but in the end we did go to the moon and so all the data, theories and logic really just shows how data can be slightly biased to prove anything even when the reality is staring you in the face.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Some company(s) had to make all the needed materials (many people)l, it had to be moved and placed into the towers (over a very long period of time)...many people.

Perhaps so but I believe the people involved planting explosive devices were killed eminently by the original plotters such as using Cheney hit squad.
As for spraying na-nothermite in the core columns I don’t believe the people doing the spraying had any idea they were applying an explosive chemical to begin with. Who knows, this deadly cocktail may have been made by the CIA working for the Bush administration, perhaps a painting company was hired from insiders, perhaps working through port authority to spray the inside core columns, everyone was working on a need to know bases. I really don’t think most of the people involved setting up some of the events even knew they were part of doing 911.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by impressme]