9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support your claims

Go ahead and verify yourself, and i'm gonna do the same. (Ain't gonna happen) i guess.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Thanks for posting that Ivan.

My name is IVAR

My apologies IVAR.

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

Good for you.

Well who claimes[sic] that it,s easy to control an jet airliner at VMO + xxx

trebor, weedwhacker, ISunTzu, Xtrozero, hooper.

Most of which claim to be pilots, but still don't know how to plot a V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known. Of course none of them are willing to put their names to their claims as have the numerous Aviation Professionals listed here.

patriotsquestion911.com...

You should really read the thread instead of joining a conversation mid discussion. Some people might call that rude, and usually involves many misunderstandings.


IVAR, do you also think a V-G diagram cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known? Do you think it would be "easy" to control an aircraft at VMO+150? Especially for a pilot with zero time in type and less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots?

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[sic] 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[sic] bird with high rate QAR the captain was sacked as he departed the flight deck.

As there was no fatalaties[sic] it was kept in house.

So there is no way to verify what you say.

Altitude? Exact speeds? Altitude needed to recover?

.

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[sic] for the B757-200 that hit Pentagon.

Guess what, It didn't fall apart

But it did need almost 30,000 feet to recover. Sorry, the aircraft which impacted the south tower only had 1000 feet.

Ivar over and out.

Nighty night.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots?

I'm a line pilot, i fly jets with VREF 125-160 kts, flying my brothers Piper at 70 kts looks nasty at its best

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots?

I'm a line pilot, i fly jets with VREF 125-160 kts, flying my brothers Piper at 70 kts looks nasty at its best

IVAR, do you feel it is impossible to plot/draw a V-G diagram when the V-Speeds are known?

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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.

Ugh, I'm so tired of hearing this fallacy. These "boxcutter wielding cavemen" had the same brains as us. They had the intelligence to steal identities and get into flight classes. Stop using the fallacy of ignorance to support your view.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Your diagram is impossible because none of us are test pilots, and none of us have the exact numbers of the planes that was used as weapons 9/11 2001

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Your diagram is impossible because none of us are test pilots, and none of us have the exact numbers of the planes that was used as weapons 9/11 2001

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

Do you still think a V-G diagram is impossible to plot with the V-Speeds as defined in the above Type Certificate data sheet?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Sorry Tiff, but the B767 aint gonna tear itself to pieces passing VMO, neither you or i know the limits.
None of us are test pilots, if you are i'm sorry for underestimated you

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Sorry Tiff, but the B767 aint gonna tear itself to pieces passing VMO, neither you or i know the limits.
None of us are test pilots, if you are i'm sorry for underestimated you

That was not the question I asked. But we will get to that.

Again, do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V-speeds are known?

A simple yes or no will do.

Please try not to evade the question again as readers might start to see a pattern.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLAAgain, do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V-speeds are known?

Yes, because the hijackers 9/11 didn't have to do a takeoff, or a landing for that matter.
They didn't care for the structural limits of the planes they were flying.

So, your diagram is worth nothing in this case.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by TiffanyInLAAgain, do you think it is impossible to plot a V-G diagram when the V-speeds are known?

Yes, because the hijackers 9/11 didn't have to do a takeoff, or a landing for that matter.
They didn't care for the structural limits of the planes they were flying.

So, your diagram is worth nothing in this case.

So this V-G diagram from the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics means nothing?



If we know Vd for the 767 as set by Boeing and outlined in the Type Certificate Data Sheet, do you STILL say that it is impossible to place that V-Speed in the above diagram at the Vd line?

Is Vd as set by Boeing based on wind tunnel and flight tests defined differently from the Vd labeled in the above V-G diagram as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics?

Why have you not objected to this V-G diagram at PPRuNe?

www.pprune.org...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA



Sorry Tiff, gotta fly a real Boeing from one place to another within 130 minutes.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Sorry Tiff, gotta fly a real Boeing from one place to another within 130 minutes.

Have a safe trip. Try not to go over Vd as EA990 suffered in flight structural failure 5 knots over Vd into the Structural Failure Zone outside the V-G Envelope.



Read more here when you get some time.

Click

I'll be looking forward to your objections of this V-G Diagram at PPRuNe and the reactions from other pilots who know and are very aware that you can draw your own V-G when the V-Speeds are known.

www.pprune.org...

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Have a safe trip. Try not to go over Vd as EA990 suffered in flight structural failure 5 knots over Vd into the Structural Failure Zone outside the V-G Envelope.

Just so I understand this correctly, are you arguing that there were no planes at the WTC, or that somehow a non 757 with greater structural capability was camouflaged as a 757 and flown into the towers for some unspecified reason, then the real 757 was disposed of somehow afterward?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Have a safe trip. Try not to go over Vd as EA990 suffered in flight structural failure 5 knots over Vd into the Structural Failure Zone outside the V-G Envelope.

Just so I understand this correctly, are you arguing that there were no planes at the WTC, or that somehow a non 757 with greater structural capability was camouflaged as a 757 and flown into the towers for some unspecified reason, then the real 757 was disposed of somehow afterward?

This has been posted once on every page for perhaps the past 20 pages, but I guess now is as good as any to post it for this page.

The score remains the same after FIFTY-FIVE pages -

Evidence for my argument (Reported speeds/control "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 - www.abovetopsecret.com...)



Evidence for the argument of those who blindly support the OS ("It is easy to control an aircraft at Vmo+150") -

"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-- 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. 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...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


None of this answers the question I asked, nor have I made the claims you're stating, please reply to me specifically rather than just pasting a section of post in. I am more than happy to investigate your claims, but I don't debate no-planers or the like.

That's why I am trying to get a handle on what you're arguing here.

The title of this thread is -

"9/11, Even Real Pilots couldn't do It"

In other words, we are arguing aircraft control. Not No-planes.

Feel free to stick to topic and debate the control issues based on the data offered.

It would also help if you actually read the thread.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
The title of this thread is -

"9/11, Even Real Pilots couldn't do It"

In other words, we are arguing aircraft control. Not No-planes.

That is why I am confused, you seem to be arguing that the plane was not structurally capable of this manoeuvre, in which case there must be some alternate explanation other than 'control'

Feel free to stick to topic and debate the control issues based on the data offered.

It would also help if you actually read the thread.

edit on 21-10-2010 by TiffanyInLA because: (no reason given)

Well I would try, but apparently even getting a straight answer for a question this simple is impossible. Doesn't exactly fill me with much hope!

Originally posted by exponent
That is why I am confused, you seem to be arguing that the plane was not structurally capable of this manoeuvre, in which case there must be some alternate explanation other than 'control'

So you are asking me to speculate and provide an alternate explanation to solve the crime completely?

You are using textbook disinfo tactic number 14.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

www.benfrank.net...

Well I would try, but apparently even getting a straight answer for a question this simple is impossible. Doesn't exactly fill me with much hope!

You're free to post anywhere you like. Let us know when you would like to debate aircraft control.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
So you are asking me to speculate and provide an alternate explanation to solve the crime completely?

You are using textbook disinfo tactic number 14.

Ah, I see, you can't actually explain it. Well no bother, I wasn't really expecting much. Incidentally that is apparently tactic #12

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

You're free to post anywhere you like. Let us know when you would like to debate aircraft control.

I would, if I could get an idea of what you were proposing. However, it seems you don't even know your own conclusions, so until you can present something to argue against I will give it a miss thanks.