9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by iSunTzu
No one has proved it was not 175 and 77.

So I guess you think Santa Claus still exists because no one has proven he doesn't -- combined with the fact NORAD tracks him each year?

You may want to review the Logical Fallacy called - Argument From Ignorance

Really, click it...

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
So was the second plane I watched with my own 2 eyes being flown by remote
control or were the PTB infiltrating my brain so that I would see a hologram?

Don't think the hologram theory is a big joke. The truth will come out eventually when the guilty parties are all dead and gone.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


can you explain to me why - your diagram shows that the 767 series will alegedly suffer structural failure at 420kt when its published max cruising speed is 493kt ?

source

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

can you explain to me why - your diagram shows that the 767 series will alegedly suffer structural failure at 420kt when its published max cruising speed is 493kt ?

source

Hint - The 767 does not "cruise" at 700 feet.

After you figure that one out, you can change your name to knowledgeable-ape.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


hint - your " diagram " doesnt give an altitude reference

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Someone faked a Vg diagram. It is called fraud. Someone out of ignorance took a training aid Vg diagram, a sample Vg diagram and photo shopped numbers, and they think it is 767 Vg diagram. It is one of the most anti-intellectual acts done, as bad as Balsamo's 11.2g made up physics blunder.

www.cesura17.net...
www.cesura17.net...

You can't take a Vg diagram and insert your own numbers and say a plane will break up past a certain point.

Boeing says normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured. The Vg diagram is fake and has nothing to do with reality except expose some people don't understand Vg diagrams.

Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured. www.biggles-software.com...

The truth is a Boeing jet can go well past Vmo and not break up. RADAR of Flight 175, the one and only real 175, was clocked at 510 knots impacting the WTC. No one has refuted it was Flight 175. If faking a Vg diagram is the best people can do, there is zero chance those people will come up with evidence to more than offer no theory.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
You can't take a Vg diagram and insert your own numbers and say a plane will break up past a certain point.

Pilots at PPRuNe disagree with you -

if you can get the the following data you can draw it

Vs1, Vmo, design limit load; you can draw it

Source - www.pprune.org...

So does the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

So does APS Training, an aerobatic flight school.
www.apstraining.com...

So do the editors at Wiki,
upload.wikimedia.org...

Since you are having a hard time understanding the V-G diagram, and obviously didn't read this thread, allow me to copy and paste a simple tutorial I provided on page 38 for others who were confused.



767 speeds -

Va/Vra - 290 - Maneuvering speed/Rough Air penetration speed, represented at the point where it says "Maneuvering speed" in the above V-G diagram.

Vmo - 360 - Max Structural Cruise/Max Operating, represented by the end of the "Normal Operating" Green zone and the start of the Caution zone in yellow.

Vd - 420 - Limit Dive speed, represented by the end of the flight envelope to the right and start of the "Structural Failure" red zone - for every aircraft on this planet.

Hope this helps clear up the confusion you seem to be having with respect to basic aeronautical knowledge.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Not one of your sources says you can make up a Vg diagram using a sample Vg diagram and inserting your own numbers. One pilot said you can do it, and he is wrong. You have a pilot at pprune, who might not be a pilot telling you to fake a Vg diagram, so you fake it. That is kind of gullible.

Your Vg diagram is fake, it is not a 767 Vg diagram, no matter how few "may be a pilots", as in one, you get to endorse it, or say you can do it. Your Vg diagram is nonsense.

You took a sample Vg diagram and photo shopped your own numbers and claim it is a 767 Vg diagram.

Vd is not the start of structural failure, you are making up fake Vspeeds now. Boeing does not give a speed for structural failure. Did Balsamo make up this fake Vg diagram? What altitudes? Where are the MACH numbers? Where is the weight? You faked the Gs too.

Vd - Design diving speed : Not what you said

Please show us the Vspeed for CATASTROPHIC AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL FAILURE. What speed is that for a 767? Vcasf? I know a crew who did a split S, they exceeded Vmo over 150 knots, they are alive, the Boeing Heavy Jet is alive. Boeing makes great jets, no break up at 510 knots when 175 hit the WTC tower. 9 years and 99.9 percent of all pilots know planes do not magically fall apart because someone makes up fake Vg diagrams.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
I am and[sic] engineers[sic] and a pilot, and I say you can't do it, but you have a pilot at pprune who might not be a pilot telling you to fake a Vg diagram, so you fake it.

Are you saying Va, Vmo and Vd are not represented in the above V-G diagram as set by Boeing and defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics for a V-G diagram?

If so, you are wrong and you should get your money back for your training.

Be sure to go tell the FAA they are wrong as well.



www.access.gpo.gov...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


You have a fake Vg diagram, not a 767 diagram.

You posted sources which did not say you can make up a Vg diagram. You failed to provide the Vspeed for CATASTROPHIC AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL FAILURE. Why? Show everyone the structural failure speed. Post it.

What does Boeing say about flight over Vmo? 99.99 percent of all pilots could hit targets like the terrorists. The only pilots as a group who say they can't fly and hit targets as wide as runways are the Pilots for Truth, who claim they can't do it in the safety of a flight simulator. Might not want to fly with pilots who can't do better than terrorists.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


The problem that you are having is that any real ATP knows immeadiately that you are blowing smoke so you may as well show a picture of a rat to a mouse and try to conveince him its a lion.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


The problem that you are having is that any real ATP knows immeadiately that you are blowing smoke so you may as well show a picture of a rat to a mouse and try to conveince him its a lion.

Originally posted by iSunTzu
You have a fake Vg diagram, not a 767 diagram.

You posted sources which did not say you can make up a Vg diagram.

Clearly you do not understand the V-G diagram and the V-speeds which comprise such a diagram.

Click here and read page 151. It is a short paragraph.

Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics

Here's a hint -

The other end of the diagram is the Max Allowable Speed.... It is referred to as the Maximum Dive speed or Vd. For our airplane, Let us assume this speed is 200 knots. This complete the envelope.

...

At a load factor of +3.8 or -1.52, or at speeds greater than 200 knots, structural failure could occur.

ISunTsu since it seems you're still confused -

Vd is the end of the flight envelope/V-G diagram and the beginning of the Structural Failure Zone for every aircraft on this planet.

EA990 suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS. This is 5 knots into the Structural Failure Zone of the 767 based on speeds set by Boeing, the definitions as set by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, and it is 85 knots LESS than the speeds reported for the aircraft which hit the south tower.

Read and learn - Click

When you get done with that, go tell the pilots at PPRuNe that they cannot draw their own V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known. You seem to be the only one on this planet who claims to be a pilot, who disagrees with the PPRuNe Tech Log forum and every other flight school on this planet.

www.pprune.org...

Then when you get done with that, go edit Wiki -
upload.wikimedia.org...

and the FAA -
www.access.gpo.gov...

And all these other V-G diagrams - Click

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

The problem that you are having is that any real ATP knows immeadiately[sic] that you are blowing smoke so you may as well show a picture of a rat to a mouse and try to conveince[sic] him its a lion.

So, none of these pilots are ATP's?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


And all these other V-G diagrams - Click

Geez...ya think those other VG diagrams were developed from flight test data and other technical inputs and not snagged off a website and had new photoshopped numbers added?

Fact is the Pilots Club cannot use a real Boeing 767 VG diagram so they have to make one up. I'd like to see "Captain" Bob Balsamo take his home-made diagram into a court of law and state for the record that it is a true, valid and aeronautically correct VG diagram and back it up with flight test and modeling data, THAT would be fun. We've already seen what "Captain" Bob Balsamo's track record is in a court of law. There is no reason to believe there would be any different result.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


And all these other V-G diagrams - Click

Geez...ya think those other VG diagrams were developed from flight test data and other technical inputs and not snagged off a website and had new photoshopped numbers added?

Here is the V-G Diagram in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.



See the Vd on the right? Good.

What does it say outside the envelope? That's correct trebor, it says "Structural Failure".

Feel free to plug in the numbers of any aircraft you want based on V-Speeds and you too can draw your own V-G diagram.


Oh look, here's another who knows how to do it...

I haven't made one for a year or two.
It is called a V-n or V-g diagram.
You can make it yourself.
You look up all the information in the POH/AFM.
Horizontal line is airspeed.
Vertical line is g-loading.
Top border is positive-g load limit.
Bottom border is negative-g load limit.
Right border is Vne.
Left border is Zero kts/mph.
The positive knee is at Va, Vs is another point at 1-g.
I would have to go back and review my sources, but this is what I recall
from memory.

www.airtalk.org...

It appears trebor, weedwhacker and ISunTzu are the only people who don't know how to plot their own V-G when the V-speeds are known.

Again guys, let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

So, none of these pilots are ATP's?

patriotsquestion911.com...

LOL.....they could be, but they are also "pilots" that believe it is impossible to hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper while flying a 767 at 450 knots.

They also believe a remote-controlled aircraft could hit those 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide towers - while they, with the aircraft under their experienced hand, could not.

They also believe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

They also believe there are moon bases on the dark side of the moon where we interact with aliens.

They also believe it was high explosives and not AA 77 that caused the damage to the Pentagon.

They also believe all it takes is a split second to switch a 767 transponder from its normal squawk over to the hijack code (7500). "It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over." Which is pure BS. There are four knobs, two outer knobs and two inner knobs, and dialing in the hijack transponder code would take time.

They also believe there was no jet fuel at the Pentagon crash site. I'm sure that is welcome new to my former neighbor, Juan Cruz, who was burned over 70 percent of his body by no jet fuel.

They also believe that "Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel." something any high school physics student would be able to debunk in one afternoon experiment.

They also believe holograms slammed into the WTC.

They also believe that Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a legitimate organization based on sound aeronautical analysis.

They also believe the 757 damage at the Pentagon should have displayed damage that indicated "clockwise rotation about the vertical axis due to impact angle" because that is what happens when a Radio Controlled model crashes.

They also believe it would take 11.2 g's to pull out of a dive at the Pentagon.

They also believe a 767 will break apart at 1 knot over its design limit. Period.

They also believe that a radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan..

I could go on and on with what these fools claim, but tell us again.....why should we believe any of them?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

Thanks for posting that Ivan.

My name is IVAR

Except of course a person named "ADDIS77" and "GR53", both registering at PPRuNe Sept 2010, both from the Washington DC area, both obsessed with Rob Balsamo and Pilots For 9/11 Truth, and both registering to only post in your linked thread.

I've been a member of pprune since Danny started the site in 1999

It appears there is no one there willing to support the claims of those who blindly support the OS and such absurd claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

Well who claimes that it,s easy to control an jet airliner at VMO + xxx. As line pilots we're trained to operate the hardware we fly well inside the design envelope.
However, at a former airline of mine we had one B737 going supersonic in an attept to recover from a Asian Captain Ego Trip. Some panels departed the aeroplane, but they got it down with no fatalities, Since this was an ex european bird with high rate QAR the captain was sacked as he departed the flight deck.

As there was no fatalaties it was kept in house.

About 3 months later we had a serious incident involving an B777 in an high altitude upset (same company) .
Got from FL 330 to 8000 ft in half the time that you ct folks claims imposible for the B757-200 that hit Pentagon.

Guess what, It didn't fall apart Ivar over and out.

"I could go on and on with what these fools claim, but tell us again.....why should we believe any of them?"

Yeah, I see what you mean. You're better off believing that 19 diminutive boxcutter wielding cavemen with no flying experience (couldn't even keep a Cessna in the air) had absolutely no problem in causing massive destruction and bringing the most powerful country to its knees.

Originally posted by trebor451
LOL.....they could be, but they are also "pilots" that believe it is impossible to hit a 1,300 foot tall by 208 foot wide skyscraper while flying a 767 at 450 knots.

510 knots.

Why do you keep reducing the speeds reported trebor? Each time you post, you reduce the speeds by 20 knots from your last. Too funny.

The lateral margin for error is 25'.

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-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots to hit a runway and was refused to rent a 172.

You have failed for more than 54 pages.

Oh look, here's yet another who knows how to plot his own V-G when the V-Speeds are known.

I too have made a few by hand but its never as nice as it would be if
generated by excel or similar.

www.airtalk.org...

trebor, you figure out how to plot a V-G yet? Call your local flight school, maybe they can help you.