9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by zerbot565
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 ,

The speeds reported for the WTC aircraft are based on Radar.

The speeds for the other aircraft are based on Radar and Black Box data.

All speeds reported are extremely excessive.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by zerbot565
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 ,

The speeds reported for the WTC aircraft are based on Radar.

The speeds for the other aircraft are based on Radar and Black Box data.

All speeds reported are extremely excessive.

I am not a master of aeronautics, but doesn't the altitude/speed correlation play a huge factor in making this
maneuver extremely difficult?

Originally posted by Janky Red
I am not a master of aeronautics, but doesn't the altitude/speed correlation play a huge factor in making this
maneuver extremely difficult?

Yes, it does.

It would take us less time if you watch this video. It is all explained here by Aeronautical Engineers and United/American Airlines 757/767 Captains.

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

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

Wow, I didn't know I wrote that...no wait you wrote that...you sillly rabbit. So do you agree with those speeds...just asking...yes or no would work...

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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

Wow, I didn't know I wrote that...no wait you wrote that...you sillly rabbit.

You expressed "that it is hard to put a true number to their speeds.... .". You feel radar is inaccurate in terminal areas.

How much of a margin of error do you think TRACON ASR Radar has?

10 knots? 20? 30? 50? 70?

So do you agree with those speeds...just asking...yes or no would work...

Put down your beer (and perhaps shot), and read. Your question was answered.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Try answering some of my questions when you get a chance. you've avoided them all.

The score remains after FOURTY-TWO pages -

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 4nsicphd
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.

Abrupt full deflection was repeatedly experienced in the UA93 data provided by the NTSB at close to Vmo -

Scroll forward to 1:21:00

Google Video Link

(Be sure to watch it till the end to see the Full defection being repeatedly used well above Va, and yet, the aircraft remains in control)

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.)

Great point.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Janky Red
I am not a master of aeronautics, but doesn't the altitude/speed correlation play a huge factor in making this
maneuver extremely difficult?

Yes, it does.

It would take us less time if you watch this video. It is all explained here by Aeronautical Engineers and United/American Airlines 757/767 Captains.

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

Hope this helps.

Sure does, thanks, pretty much what I thought...

I wonder if there are any surrogate military aircraft that can achieve those parameters and fool the eye with a coat of paint and a logo?

Also, regarding all the holes in the OS, maybe all of us should determine which hole would prove the best
to supply un deniable proof. My thought is the one thing that is often over looked is actually the Anthrax "scare"
at the capital. Very strange that such a clear threat was delivered to the politicians who "might" have had the power to stop the ensuing war/oil agenda. The psychological component and all that followed

Back to the OP, this evidence is very substantial, unfortunately it requires many people to think outside the realms of "normal thought". Often times ignorance, wether it be real of feigned is the best method of attrition.
I am actually shocked that any person can view the OS with respect or regard, the discrepancies and problems
on so many levels are copious. In the end the biggest piece of evidence is the Trillion dollar military effort as it
serves as motive, all possible because of this live theatric presentation, mass murder.

what would you do for a chunk of a Trillion dollars?

I am glad they can't take it with them, that is the only justice I can observe.

Great work!

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
You feel radar is inaccurate in terminal areas.

Hmm not sure if I wrote that either...nope I'm sure I didn't... Talk about straw man fallacy...


you just can't say yes or no can you...hehe

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
You feel radar is inaccurate in terminal areas.

Hmm not sure if I wrote that either...nope I'm sure I didn't... Talk about straw man fallacy...


you just can't say yes or no can you...hehe

So, you feel "it is hard to put a true number on speeds" based on radar, but you feel radar is also accurate?

Is radar only "hard to put a true number on speed" when it suits your blind support for the OS and only accurate when your butt is in the seat?



Again Xtrozero - Your question was answered. click the link.

You keep asking, I'll keep giving you the link.

Read it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(you do have to scroll down a bit to get the answer. Do you know how to use a scroll?)

Feel free to answer any of my questions asked. I'm patient though, we've been waiting for over 40 pages.

You can type away all day but just can't say yes I agree with the findings.... Why should I dig for an answer that would take you 3 or 2 letters to answer?

I'm not disagreeing with the speeds, I just haven’t put efforts you have into it all and want YOUR opinion on whether you agree or not agree.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
You can type away all day but just can't say yes I agree with the findings.... Why should I dig for an answer that would take you 3 or 2 letters to answer?

First, researching 9/11 is not a simple "yes or no" as much as you would like to believe. It is a very complex issue.

Second, I am proving a point. Your credibility has diminished in almost every argument you have made. You set a great example of those who blindly support anything the govt tells them.

Why do you reply to posts without reading them in full?

Why should people have to re-type and repeatedly provide sources for you if you refuse to click them?

Only to accuse us of spam?

I'm not disagreeing with the speeds,

Great, neither am I.

Numerous verified experts want answers based on the speeds reported by a govt agency tasked to ensure the safety of the traveling public.

You seem to make excuses.

I just haven’t put efforts you have into it all and want YOUR opinion on whether you agree or not agree.

I gave you my "opinion" on the matter over 5 times already. Sorry you don't like the answer, but I suppose you have to actually read the answer first in order to disagree with it.

Again - Let us know when you get some evidence, data and/or verified experts to endorse your theories and blind support of the OS.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
You can type away all day but just can't say yes I agree with the findings.... Why should I dig for an answer that would take you 3 or 2 letters to answer?

I'm not disagreeing with the speeds, I just haven’t put efforts you have into it all and want YOUR opinion on whether you agree or not agree.

Sorry to intervene, but I think it is clear that she believes that the OS is crap to some measure, this evidence further reduces the legitimacy of the OS...

I have just gotten here and I can ascertain as much in ten minutes = someone official is lying

I have to ask you, what compels you to shun these findings the way you do?

We are discussing highly understood variables, airframes represent countless hours of thought and composition.

What is your point of contention aside from mindset or political affiliation?

Thats is something I cannot figure out

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Tiffany, we have gone to great lengths to show how the effects of Vmo+ 150 make that speed extremely unlikely: mach tuck, flutter, g loading, rolling moment induced structural deformation or failure.
Let's try adding a series of facts that lead to a conclusion and see if any one of these facts is disputed.
FACT: Both 757s named in the OS were powered by Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4 turbofan engines.
FACT: The RB211-535E4 has a nominal low pressure fan speed of 3900 rpm at 100% power.
FACT: The maximum design operating limit of the RB211-535E4 is 110.5%, which equates to 4309.5 rpm.
FACT: The diameter of the low pressure fan is 74.5 inches.
FACT: Fan blades are airfoils, having an angle of incidence and camber.
FACT: At full power, the tips of the fan blades would be traveling at 4309.5 x 3.14159 x 74.5 inches/minute or 1 008 581 inches per minute or, when added to the forward speed, as reported, would be traveling 1490 mph or about mach 2.0.
FACT: Supersonic airflow disrupts airflow over an airfoil, often causing compressor stall.
FACT: Compressor stall on a jet engine causes an audible "bang."
FACT: No sounds of a compressor stall or DFDR records of an EGT fluctuation were reported by the NTSB.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Second, I am proving a point. Your credibility has diminished in almost every argument you have made. You set a great example of those who blindly support anything the govt tells them.

My credibility or better yet, your desire to somehow destroy it is not in question or the point. I didn't come here expressing I was an expert with the answers. I came here and looked at what you are using as your “proof” and it is either stovepipe down some bias path just to express a point, or parts that could be true and do disagree with the OS (whatever that may be) ends up being somewhat moot.

The OS that states planes were hijacked by terrorist and flew into the towers has not been disputed except by crackpot ideas with no substance. (Such as the “engineer” on the video you have posted a number of times stating the aircraft would come apart at 220 MPH at 700 feet). The OS expressing that the kinetic energy of said airplanes with 10,000 plus gallons of fuel weaken a few floors causing them to collapse that continued all the way to the ground has also received the same treatment, AND those who created counter theories have not carried any weight past their small core groups of those theories.

Isn’t that the big issue here? This is not about me or you or weedwacker or others, it is about the engineering/science with other communities that have not accepted a single rebuttal theory to the OS. You can repost over and over your precious 100 or so pilot group or the 1200? (Questionable) engineer group but they still all stand after nine years as fringe groups well outside the main core of their professions.

This means they are the only people on the planet that know and everyone else are ignorant, or they are wrong enough that no one is taking them seriously. Since physical proof just fades away to support these other theories I tend to think they are wrong enough that no one is taking them seriously, but keep up the good work you might win me over yet with further proof, but we really have not seen anything that would be considered new proof in many years, so a continued repeat just will not do it.

You may be upset I do not agree with your theories, but then do you agree the 100s of other theories too? I think not... So yours is right and the 100s of others along with the OS is wrong....a pattern I see with everyone of these theories...

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
.
FACT: Supersonic airflow disrupts airflow over an airfoil, often causing compressor stall.

Funny. I've never seen/heard/experienced a compressor stall on a wing, which of course is an airfoil.

Or horizontal stabilizers, which are airfoils.

Or the fuselage of an aircraft when it is designed to be a lifting body, which of course, would be an airfoil.

You might want to rephrase that particular comment else you might be confused with "Radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan" Tiffany.

Also, I see you used the modifier "often" rather than the absolute "always". That lends credence to the possibility that it does not always happen.

Are you prepared to stand by that?

Originally posted by Janky Red

What is your point of contention aside from mindset or political affiliation?

Thats is something I cannot figure out

The deal is the speeds in the OS are somewhat moot and not the real point here, so to argue Ad nauseam about them is kind of stupid except if you have further agendas. For someone to reduce the speeds as much as they can furthers their true theories, and in this case these are basically…

1. Planes had to be different than the airliners
2. Pilots had to be different with much more experience

If not, or in some combination with above

3. Planes were not able to generate the kinetic energy needed to start the collapse, so they were use to disguise the real force…det cord, special thermal paint, alien technology etc that brought the towers down.

So what I suggest is the planes hit at high speeds with enough force along with the huge amounts of fuel to weaken the inner core starting the collapse with weight and gravity finishing it.

All these other factors added to create alternate scenarios also add a huge amount of variables that just tend to fizzle off in many different direction, but many do not care and simply bridge these huge gaps like they were small cracks to step over, so when I see a theory splinter off like this I close the book on it….

Mine follows the main points of the OS and their's doesn't at all...plain and simple.

So I'm blind and they are the enlighten ones... I can live with that...hehe

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
.
FACT: Supersonic airflow disrupts airflow over an airfoil, often causing compressor stall.

Funny. I've never seen/heard/experienced a compressor stall on a wing, which of course is an airfoil.

Or horizontal stabilizers, which are airfoils.

Or the fuselage of an aircraft when it is designed to be a lifting body, which of course, would be an airfoil.

You might want to rephrase that particular comment else you might be confused with "Radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan" Tiffany.

Also, I see you used the modifier "often" rather than the absolute "always". That lends credence to the possibility that it does not always happen.

Are you prepared to stand by that?

OMG. I guess that's why they pay us the big bucks to sit up front. Of course wings and tails and fuses won't be susceptible to compressor stalls - they don't have compressors. See, a turbojet or turbofan engine has a compressor section and a turbine section. If you have ever seen a jet engine (I can show you a picture in case you haven't) the compressor section is in the front. It has a lot of little blades connected (Usually and hopefully) to a hub. On the RB211, there is a single stage fan in the front with propellor-like blades. Behind that is a 6 stage intermediate pressure comressor section. The purpose of this whole arrangement is, as you might possibly guess from the nomenclature is to compress the air coming in the front of the engine so that it will have the proper mass of oxygen for a more or less complete burning of the kerosene jet fuel. The air and fuel go into the burner section, where it (guess what??) burns. When it burns, it gets hot. Hot gas expands. Since it can't go back out the front of the engine because of the compressed air up front (except in some cases of compressor stall where you will see flames and smoke blow back out the front, scaring the hell out of everyone and really pissing off management because of the repair costs) it goes out the back after passing over more blades, this time in the turbine section. The RB211 535 Series has a single stage HP turbine, a single stage IP turbine and a 3 stage LP turbine section. The turbine stage is connected by means of shafts to the compressor section and is what makes the compressor section spin.
OK, now to the stalls. An airfoil stalls when the airflow over it separates and becomes turbulent, for whatever reason. A normal wing stall occurs when the angle of attack exceeds a critical number. That separation and turbulence can also be caused by too high a speed which causes a compression shock wave to build up in front of some part of the airfoil, causing the separation. Since you apparently have never experienced a compressor stall, I'll show a video. This one is a 757 with a bird strike. Notice the flames and noise.
www.youtube.com... Here's another of an F-16. www.youtube.com...
OK Tiff, we have one taker who denies that supersonic compressibility can cause a compressor stall. We can repair to the pilot's lounge aver talk about it over brandy.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
.
OK Tiff, we have one taker who denies that supersonic compressibility can cause a compressor stall. We can repair to the pilot's lounge aver talk about it over brandy.

You can repair to wherever you like and talk about compressor stalls on an airfoil till the cows come home. I don't care if you and Tiff swap spit or revel in the ecstasy of your obvious mutual admiration society. It still doesn't change that fact that a "compressor stall" will never, ever, happen on a wing, which is an airfoil, which is where you claimed they would occur.

If you could be so kind as to describe the "compressor stalls" you have experienced on a wing, complete with the associated increase in turbine-inlet-temperature, loss of power and loud bang that accompanies it, we would all be amazed and humbled.

If you had chosen your words a bit more carefully and paid attention to the detail of the point your were trying to get across, you wouldn't look like the fool you are, now would you? As it is you have removed all doubt as to any question of your being a foil of Tiffany.

As far as you making the big bucks to sit in the front, care to tell the world what organization you flew for? That way we can repair top the other pilot's lounge and have a good belly laugh at the pilot who claims a compressor stall occurs on a wing.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
FACT: At full power, the tips of the fan blades would be traveling at 4309.5 x 3.14159 x 74.5 inches/minute or 1 008 581 inches per minute or, when added to the forward speed, as reported, would be traveling 1490 mph or about mach 2.0.
FACT: Supersonic airflow disrupts airflow over an airfoil, often causing compressor stall.
FACT: Compressor stall on a jet engine causes an audible "bang."
FACT: No sounds of a compressor stall or DFDR records of an EGT fluctuation were reported by the NTSB.

So is this a factor with all tubro fan/jet engines or just RR engines, and does it take mach 2 to get it to compressor stall or would mach 1 do it too?

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Since you apparently have never experienced a compressor stall, I'll show a video.

Thanks for the video, but I have experienced plenty of compressor stalls - never on a wing, however. Mismatches of aircraft and engines throughout history have provided many, many compressor stalls. The F-14A Pratt and Whitney TF30-P414 engine was notorious for compressor stalls. Whenever we'd engage, the throttles were placed in max afterburner and the throttle friction knob was cranked up. If you started fooling with the throttles in the dynamic environment of air combat, you were just asking for a "BANG". Been there, done that.

Never had that "BANG" happen on a wing, though, which is, of course, an airfoil.