9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

With that said, when you use correct math based on the distance/sweeps of each radar point, you'll get the same as the NTSB reports, 430 knots for the North tower aircraft and 510 knots for the south tower aircraft.

So are these two speeds the ones you are officially endorsing?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

Actually it was...

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "why yes it easily can..."

What these two statements do not have is neither say Official Boeing spokesperson, exec etc followed by a full name, as my prior posts did.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."

Actually it was...

(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "why yes it easily can..."

What these two statements do not have is neither say Official Boeing spokesperson, exec etc followed by a full name, as my prior posts did.

Once again you read only what you want to read. Not to mention you are knowingly posting misleading and false information as no one from Boeing said - "why yes, it easily can". This is against ATS T&C rule 1.

1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

The name was given, her name is Leslie Hazzard. This is her title and contact info -

Contact:

Leslie Hazzard

767 Communications

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle

+1 425-717-0232

[email protected]

Feel free to contact her and ask the same question.

Boeing already made their "Official" statement on the matter when they set limits for their aircraft.

Your source says it is "way off the charts".

Leslie Hazzard says, "not a chance".

You falsely misrepresented both of them and intentionally changed their words in order to not disrupt your blind support of the OS.

Please let us know when you will find one verified pilot who will endorse your claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, while pulling G's leveling from a 10,000 ft dive in less than a minute, while cranking in 38 degrees of bank to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

With that said, when you use correct math based on the distance/sweeps of each radar point, you'll get the same as the NTSB reports, 430 knots for the North tower aircraft and 510 knots for the south tower aircraft.

So are these two speeds the ones you are officially endorsing?

Those are the two speeds officially endorsed by the NTSB based on their analysis.

Do you claim they are wrong?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Dodge, duck, weave. Dodge, duck, weave.

Your going to pull a hamstring like moving around like that.

Answer a straight question:

What is your argument? YOUR argument. State in words. Like;

"I believe the NTSB is lying about the speed of flight 175".

or

"I believe that the plane in Flight 175 was knowingly modified for its mission on September 11, 2001 in order to achieve a higher than normal speed".

Originally posted by hooper
"I believe the.....

or

"I believe that.....

Beliefs are made for religions. Such as your belief in anything the govt tells you.

That is known as an argument from incredulity and is a logical fallacy.

I have explained this all to you before, numerous times, but it appears to slip your mind every few pages.

My argument is based on evidence, let me know when you get some for yours.

Again - after FOURTY-ONE pages, the score remains - (I'll clarify the arguments since hooper seems a bit confused)

Evidence for my argument -(Reported speeds "impossible", "improbable", "The Elephant in the room".

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)


Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS -(Reported speeds "easy to control")

"Because the govt told me so..."

Data = 0
Precedent = 0
Verified Experts = 0

Again -

Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than assumption or "Because the govt told me so..."

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA








Please let us know when you will find one verified pilot who will endorse your claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150, Va+220, while pulling G's leveling from a 10,000 ft dive in less than a minute, while cranking in 38 degrees of bank to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error.

edit on 10-9-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: typo - clarity

One correction and one addition. Va is irrelevant. It is simply the maximum speed at which full elevator input can be applied without stuff breaking or bending and not springing back. Slower than Va and the wing stalls, releasing the g-loading. Faster than Va, something's going to give with full elevator input.
One thing that has not been addressed by those who think it's a piece of cake to fly something at Vmo+150 while pulling gs is the rolling g load. Your V-g diagram is for non rolling symetrical loading. Introducing a rolling moment into the equation reduced maximum allowable g-loading to about 2/3 of the certified design load limit. It varies for every airframe type ad I remember the F-4 Phantom II Flight Manual had several pages on it depending on weight, ordinance configuration, whether they had the mickey mouse jury-rigged machine gun pod on it, the model (B, D or E), etc. Some other good information on the effect of rolling on gs is in the Bellanca 8KCAB flight manual and the one for each of the Avions Mudry CAP aircraft (10, 20 230, 231, 232.)

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
.
Your source says it is "way off the charts".

Yep the same old Tiffany....take a couple of words and change the meaning and context....

You forgot the part where she said ''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' which suggests she is saying they flew those speeds...lol you funny girl....

And you forgot the other one...

In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

But then these are quick picks off the net, Boeing has about 30,000 engineers and pilots working for them and there is no 911 rumblings anywhere in the company, sorry.

You falsely misrepresented both of them and intentionally changed their words in order to not disrupt your blind support of the OS.

lol... you my friend might be able to read but you just cannot understand.... I was demonstrating that anything can be written as you did and as I did. I’ll send her an email since we work for the same company.. ;P

There is blind support, which I never suggested I did have and then there is flimsy evidence to the contrary which you seem to spam the same crap, post are post, as some kind of advertisement for your favorite web site.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Those are the two speeds officially endorsed by the NTSB based on their analysis.

Do you claim they are wrong?

Why can't you answer a simple question..I'm not claiming anything.

Once again, do you see those speeds as correct or as closely correct as we most likely can determined? Can we get a yes or no?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
But then these are quick picks off the net, Boeing has about 30,000 engineers and pilots working for them and there is no 911 rumblings anywhere in the company, sorry.

Although I know you hate to click source links - Feel free to browse through the many who work for Boeing at this link if you wish to be informed.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Watch it grow.

I was demonstrating that anything can be written as you did and as I did.

You really dislike clicking sources don't you. Why is that?

It wasn't "written". It was recorded and I transcribed the most relevant portion, since I know you hate to click links.. Try clicking it this time. I even gave you the exact time it was recorded so you don't have to sit through the whole thing.

Scroll forward to 2:57


You either knowingly posted false information, or you are ignorant to the recording after already being provided with the source. Which is it?

I’ll send her an email since we work for the same company.. ;P

Great, be sure to ask her if that is her voice on the above recording, and if the number dialed/person who answered also works at Boeing.

Perhaps you can get a V-G diagram for the 767? Considering you claim to work there and all...

You may want to ask some of the Boeing engineers about Mach Tuck while you're at it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Once again, do you see those speeds as correct or as closely correct as we most likely can determined? Can we get a yes or no?

I see those speeds as thoroughly analyzed by the NTSB, a govt agency tasked to ensure the safety of the traveling public, using RADES and ASR radar. It cross-checks with the radar data (when you apply the correct math) being provided through the FOIA by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron in located at Hill AFB in Utah.

You're the one who claims to be the pilot here.

Do you endorse it?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


I see those speeds as thoroughly analyzed by the NTSB, a govt agency tasked to ensure the safety of the traveling public, using RADES and ASR radar. It cross-checks with the radar data (when you apply the correct math) being provided through the FOIA by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron in located at Hill AFB in Utah.

So do I take that as a YES you agree with their findings?

I never suggested any speed other to say a "high rate" high enough to do what they did.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
So do I take that as a YES you agree with their findings?

I never suggested any speed other to say a "high rate" high enough to do what they did.

It's not a matter if I agree or disagree with their findings.

Their findings are based on radar which separates aircraft on a daily basis and are assigned speeds based on that same radar in highly congested terminal areas, such as NYC and Washington DC.

Do you know what Class Bravo airspace is?

For the fourth time, if you disagree with their findings, you should never get on an airplane again and fly approaches in traffic, in IMC.

Considering you have expressed that MIT, NIST and FEMA might be more accurate because their analysis shows a lower speed, you may want to get them to guide your next approach, that is if you really fly aircraft.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Scroll forward to 2:57

Lol, thank you so much for providing this video. I posted it again for all to watch since it would be hard for me to find something better so show how crackpot so many of you guys are...

The engineer on the video said the "plane would shake itself apart at 220 MPH at that altitude"

Do you agree with his statement that the plane would do that?

And the lady on the phone…lol good god! hehe

Her first words were ‘oh boy..hehe” AND her final “official statement” for Boeing… “well ya whatever that other guy said” Geez, if this is your damning proof…I just do not know what to say, or how you can even back it up..I do give you some credit, but hell how can I now after watching this that you have pushed and endorsed a number of times…

You actually made me choke on my beer in laughter as I watched it…next time warn me will ya…

Once again, LOL you got me on that one…

how do they measure the speed ?

is it some sort of theoretical equation based on flight alt and engien output that gives you the correct flight speed ?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Considering you have expressed that MIT, NIST and FEMA might be more accurate because their analysis shows a lower speed, you may want to get them to guide your next approach, that is if you really fly aircraft.

I expressed many times that it is hard to put a true number to their speeds.... That is what I think, so now what do YOU think...so are those the speeds you endorse? Come on, are you going to ever actually put your own opinion on anything, or just cut and paste others over and over.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Scroll forward to 2:57

Lol, thank you so much for providing this video. I posted it again for all to watch since it would be hard for me to find something better so show how crackpot so many of you guys are...

The engineer on the video said the "plane would shake itself apart at 220 MPH at that altitude"

Do you agree with his statement that the plane would do that?

And the lady on the phone…lol good god! hehe

Her first words were ‘oh boy..hehe” AND her final “official statement” for Boeing… “well ya whatever that other guy said” Geez, if this is your damning proof…I just do not know what to say, or how you can even back it up..I do give you some credit, but hell how can I now after watching this that you have pushed and endorsed a number of times…

You actually made me choke on my beer in laughter as I watched it…next time warn me will ya…

Once again, LOL you got me on that one…

Yes, I agree, Jeff Hill has a habit of leading the people he interviews and endorsing absurd theories such as No planes, etc. And no, I don't agree with the first interview. However, It is typical of your type (the type who blindy supports whatever the govt tells them) to focus on absurd strawmen and evade the meat and potatoes.

The fact remains, when Leslie Hazzard, a Boeing representative for the 767 was asked -

""So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"

The reply from Leslie was -

(Laughs) "Not a chance..."

You should really put down your beer and perhaps at least try to pay attention.

Leslie Hazzard joins the many other verified experts who not only know what Mach Tuck is, but feel the speeds are "impossible", "improbable", and the "Elephant In The Room".

Let us know when you find one verified expert to support your claim that it is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150. You haven't been able to find any, let alone put your own name on such an absurd claim, in almost 30 pages.

Enjoy your beer! Have a shot too!

Originally posted by zerbot565
how do they measure the speed ?

is it some sort of theoretical equation based on flight alt and engien output that gives you the correct flight speed ?

Speed = distance/time

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


yes but flight data is not viewed from the outside so its very hard to determin the correct speed , thats what i mean ,

all we have is numbers on a computer generated program that has a marginal of error ? ,

more of a quriousity factual numbers then taking any sides in this discussion ,

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I expressed many times that it is hard to put a true number to their speeds....

Thank you for letting us know you feel Radar in congested terminal areas is inaccurate and that the NTSB is incompetent.

Have you called the NTSB to get Daniel R. Bower fired? (this is the Senior Aerospace Engineer who signed his name to the Speed analysis, since I know you haven't click the source links you were given).

Have you called the 84th RADES Squadron at Hill AFB to get Lt Col Stephen Bailey relieved of duty?

Do you really fly airplanes?

I had my doubts before, considering your statements on Mach Tuck and inaccurate math on Radar data, but I think you have just lost all credibility. You are not a pilot.

so now what do YOU think...so are those the speeds you endorse? Come on, are you going to ever actually put your own opinion on anything, or just cut and paste others over and over.

If I "endorse" the radar data and analysis, will that make radar data more or less accurate in your eyes?

Let's just put it this way, I still fly in aircraft IMC, in traffic. CAT III certified to be exact. So yes, I trust the speeds assigned based on Radar. We haven't hit another airplane yet!

If you really are a pilot, do you fly any passengers?

Have you told them you don't trust the radar that is vectoring you for the approach?