9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

9/11, even real pilots couldn't do it

The hijackers who flew the planes into the world trade center weren't real pilots?

Originally posted by exponent

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.

If we had all the answers, we wouldn't be here, now would we.

What we do know is that the aircraft which impacted the south tower -(it was reported as a 767 by the way, not a 757 as you claimed here, you might want to get that straight first before you decide to debate aircraft control) - is that it was never positively identified as a standard 767, N612UA. Furthermore, the speeds reported are "impossible", "improbable", and the "Elephant in the room" for a standard 767, according to all the evidence and data I provided above.

Anyway, you're always welcome here if you would like to debate aircraft control. We are not debating No-planes. Matter of fact it has been stated numerous times in this thread that planes did hit the towers. Now we're just trying to figure out if those planes were as we were told and piloted by a hijacker who had less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

It's not looking so good for the OS.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


i dont think anyone should assume they know more than the person next to them, beings we are now hearing from physisists, (sorry if i spelled that wrong) saying that some of what they thought just a few years ago no longer hold any water. My Dad is someone i dont really like but have respect for. That being said has had years and years building and flying anything you could imagine. From balsa wood. Now I have gone out and attempted this and yes i was of a young age and didnt quite get the hang of it, but on the same note i remember now what it took to fly those airplanes. You have GOT to have some kind a firm grasp about aerodynamics.

I feel that is pretty good logic and did not need the *debunkers" input.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
If we had all the answers, we wouldn't be here, now would we.

Well I wasn't expecting you to name the pilot, just perhaps the airframe type.

What we do know is that the aircraft which impacted the south tower -(it was reported as a 767 by the way, not a 757 as you claimed above, you might want to get that straight first before you decide to debate aircraft control)

Yeah sorry about that, genuine mistake on my part. I'm so used to talk about planes impacting the Pentagon I guess it was muscle memory!

- is that it was never positively identified as a standard 767, N612UA. Furthermore, the speeds reported are "impossible", "improbable", and the "Elephant in the room" for a standard 767, according to all the evidence and data I provided above.

Ok so here's my problem. Lets assume for a minute you're correct, and that there is no way possible for a 767 to perform like this.

The 767 is hardly an old and outdated aircraft at this point, and in fact has structural limits much in line with its competitors. It seems extremely unlikely that if a 767 is incapable of this performance, that a superficially similar aircraft can be found that is.

If you can't explain this, or provide any scenario whereby we can reconcile the videos, pictures etc of an airframe which is visually identical to a 767 performing according to your data, then your theory is self defeating.

To be even more clear and direct, you cannot argue that something is impossible if you then accept evidence which is proven equally impossible by the same argument. This is what you appear to be doing, which is why I want to find out what you think was going on.

Originally posted by exponent
The 767 is hardly an old and outdated aircraft at this point,

Actually, it is. Well, the 767-200 is. But it is still being used till replaced.

...and in fact has structural limits much in line with its competitors. It seems extremely unlikely that if a 767 is incapable of this performance, that a superficially similar aircraft can be found that is.

A DC-8 was modified to exceed it's set limits significantly based on wind tunnel and flight testing. You would not be able to point out such mods in a youtube video. Please read the thread as it was discussed.

Many aircraft are modified to increase performance. The 767 itself has been modified many times to increase performance from it's initial prototype.

If you can't explain this, or provide any scenario whereby we can reconcile the videos, pictures etc of an airframe which is visually identical to a 767 performing according to your data, then your theory is self defeating.

If you cannot provide positive identification that the aircraft which hit the south tower was a standard 767, then your theory is self-defeating. So far, all the evidence points to the fact that a standard 767 cannot achieve those speeds, hold together, and remain in control by a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your theory. "It must be true because it hasn't been proven false by an alternative explanation" is a logical fallacy and the road you are paving.

To be even more clear and direct, you cannot argue that something is impossible if you then accept evidence which is proven equally impossible by the same argument.

You cannot cannot argue that something is proven when it hasn't been proven false. See above.

Again, let us know when you have some evidence for your argument. The score remains after FIIFTY-SIX 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...

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Actually, it is. Well, the 767-200 is. But it is still being used till replaced.

Well I was referring to 2001, and I guess it's a matter of opinion but I have yet to hear of anyone referring to them as particularly old planes.

A DC-8 was modified to exceed it's set limits significantly based on wind tunnel and flight testing. You would not be able to point out such mods in a youtube video. Please read the thread as it was discussed.

Many aircraft are modified to increase performance. The 767 itself has been modified many times to increase performance from it's initial prototype.

I guess I will have to read the thread then at some point, still I find it hard to believe as a theory.

If you cannot provide positive identification that the aircraft which hit the south tower was a standard 767, then your theory is self-defeating. So far, all the evidence points to the fact that a standard 767 cannot achieve those speeds, hold together, and remain in control by a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

Not at all, a theory is self defeating if it relies upon evidence which it disproves. The 'official story' does not fit this category unless you believe in your theory.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your theory. "It must be true because it hasn't been proven false by an alternative explanation" is a logical fallacy and the road you are paving.

It's not actually a logical fallacy, only if you support it without evidence is it. As I'm sure you know, there is quite a lot of evidence that the planes impacted the towers and that they were the flights you believe them not to be. I'm sure you'll dismiss this evidence because you believe in an alternate theory, but that doesn't change the existence of it.

I'll have a read through the thread, see if I can find the DC-8 citations etc (you could just have provided them to make my life a little easier ).

Incidentally I read the report on EA990. I see no mention of pre-impact structural failure, and no evidence that the crash was caused by overspeed or any mechanical problem. The NTSB essentially concluded it was suicide and that the aircraft damage was consistent with high speed water impact. I may have missed something though, I skimmed through the HTML report available on the NTSBs site.

Originally posted by exponent
Well I was referring to 2001, and I guess it's a matter of opinion but I have yet to hear of anyone referring to them as particularly old planes.

I guess you have yet to listen to Capt Rusty Aimer who has actual flight time in the aircraft that allegedly hit the south tower and went down in Shanksville.

Full Film - 911 World Trade Center Attack

You'll also hear interviews with Capt Kolstad, who has flight time in the aircraft which allegedly hit the North Tower and the Pentagon.

I guess I will have to read the thread then at some point, still I find it hard to believe as a theory.

Argument from Incredulity - Click

Not at all, a theory is self defeating if it relies upon evidence which it disproves. The 'official story' does not fit this category unless you believe in your theory.

I don't "believe" (or disbelieve) in anything. That would be an argument from incredulity. See above.

I follow the facts, evidence and data. So far, it's not looking too good for the OS.

It's not actually a logical fallacy, only if you support it without evidence is it. As I'm sure you know, there is quite a lot of evidence that the planes impacted the towers and that they were the flights you believe them not to be.

The facts state otherwise. Please read the thread.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this evidence because you believe in an alternate theory, but that doesn't change the existence of it.

Strawman. Please tell me what alternate theory I "believe " in. Be sure to quote it.

I'll have a read through the thread, see if I can find the DC-8 citations etc (you could just have provided them to make my life a little easier

I see, you want your hand held? Sure, I'll get right on that.

Incidentally I read the report on EA990. I see no mention of pre-impact structural failure,

If you read this thread, you will see it quoted from the NTSB report several times as many of your kind have brought up the same argument. When I'm not feeling so lazy, perhaps I'll get it just for you... again.

I may have missed something though,

You did.

Search keywords - wreckage, wing panels, left engine, horizontal stab skin.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA

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

So, exactly when are you going to show us this "data" FROM BOEING which you claim supports your "argument"?

P.S. - Not your homemade, cut and paste, photoshopped diagrams that you googled. Real data, from Boeing.

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

The above was provided perhaps more than 10 times in this thread hooper. Click on it.

Next, find where is says "Vd" and the corresponding speed.

Take that speed, and place it in this diagram provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics where it says Vd.



Viola. You now have data from Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel testing placed into a diagram as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

If you feel they are both wrong by definition, be sure to take it up with them.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
I guess you have yet to listen to Capt Rusty Aimer who has actual flight time in the aircraft that allegedly hit the south tower and went down in Shanksville.

Correct, I'm still reading through the thread, long and tedious as it is. I'll get to this shortly.

Argument from Incredulity - Click

You're awfully quick to try and claim fallacies, even though you didn't actually read what I said.

I don't "believe" (or disbelieve) in anything. That would be an argument from incredulity. See above.

For someone with no belief, you certainly seem to post the exact same questions over and over and over again. This certainly doesn't give the impression that you have no particular belief.

I follow the facts, evidence and data. So far, it's not looking too good for the OS.

Well, this is where I have run into problems with this thread.

The questions you've posted repeatedly are:

Do you think an aircraft that has exceeded it's Vmo by 150 will be easy to control?

Do you feel it will be stable?

Can you find us one aircraft which is positively identified to have exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots and was stable/controllable?

This gives the impression that either AA11 or UA175 was flying over its Vmo by this amount, so I set out to verify the figures. Quite a few websites give two numbers for 767s that are relevant:
Vmo (maximum operating velocity): 0.86 Mach
Md (maximum dive): 0.91 Mach

I was unable to find if these are defined at a specific atmospheric pressure, so I used this table for a standard atmosphere which gave me a value of 295.1m/s for the speed of sound at cruising altitude. I'm using this height to ensure the lowest reasonable numbers for Vmo and to bias towards the aircraft exceeding this value.

295.1m/s appears to be 573.6 knots, giving us the two values below (rounded down to be favourable):
Vmo: 493 knots
Md: 521 knots

This means that in order to be 150 knots over the Vmo one of these planes would be travelling at 643 knots or 330m/s. However, I could not find any reference for either plane travelling this fast. Rounding up to bias this again towards your side, the fastest estimated speed I found was from FEMA for UA175, they estimated 590 mph or 513 knots, which is only 20 knots higher than Vmo and within the maximum dive mach for altitudes above 12km.

NISTs analysis however puts the aircraft speed at 542(+/-24) mph, so 451-492 knots. This is within even Vmo at the slowest reasonable speed I could define it.

This is why I am posting, I need to have this cleared up before I continue. In the first 20 or so pages I saw no reference to the source indicating Vmo was exceeded by 150knots, my own conversions and calculations based upon values NIST and FEMA provide show the aircraft impact speed to be within Vmo even when Vmo is taken at cruising altitude.

I don't need my hand held to read a topic, but this is an extensive subject and I have either missed something here or the debate is based around incorrect assumptions. Please help me find out which it is.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

The above was provided perhaps more than 10 times in this thread hooper. Click on it.

Next, find where is says "Vd" and the corresponding speed.

Take that speed, and place it in this diagram provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics where it says Vd.

Viola. You now have data from Boeing based on flight and wind tunnel testing placed into a diagram as defined by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

If you feel they are both wrong by definition, be sure to take it up with them.

56 PAGES later and Tif is *still* kickin azz....and the score isn't even close... In fact, it looks like Tif has thrown a perfect game. Doesn't look too good for skeptics.

Definitely one of the best 9/11 PLANE/SPEED threads and debates on this forum next to the other one the mods closed/locked for reasons i still don't understand tbh.

Imo, TifinLA has demonstrated and had total command of the debate from start to finish while the skeptics OS supporters have failed yet again to disprove the evidence she's put forth that overwhelmingly proves beyond a doubt, the story of real boeing jets having hit the towers, is pure fantasy.

Looking forward to that release of the update/video you mentioned!

reply to post by Orion7911

Adding numbers to a sample Vg diagram is not a real Vg diagram. You have been fooled by fraud. Boeing does not specify a speed where the plane falls apart. Flight 990 did not fall apart in flight, only an engine separated, reading the accident report refutes what has been posted.

Exceeding Vmo and Vd in a 767 does not result in immediate damage. As seen on 911, Flight 175 looked in good shape when it impacted the WTC tower. No one has refuted it was 175, and no one has presented any data a 767 can't go 510 knots. If you had evidence you would have a Pulitzer Prize. Have you notified the FBI, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN; No you have not presented any more than support for a Fake Vg diagram.

It take millions of dollars, many engineers, flight test and more to create a valid Vg diagram. Then it takes knowledge to understand that speed in excess of Vmo and Vd means the following for a Boeing Heavy Jet .

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.

Boeing does not say a 767 will break up past Vmo. The terrorist pilot on 175 did not care, he was a murderer who can hit a building with a 767, something Pilots for Truth say they can't do in the safety of a simulator. You got a fake Vg diagram to go with false claims on 911.

reply to post by exponent


Aha, I had not noticed the post above mine, and this appears to give a source for the numbers used. However, I am not entirely sure that this is valid when discussing structural failure.

The reason I am unsure is that the limit speed doesn't correlate with any variable I am aware of, and I have produced a graph to illustrate this:


As you can see by this graph, there is no correlation with air density, and the point at which Vd changes is quite drastic. I think we need to research whether this speed is mandated for other reasons, noise or birdstrike etc as it doesn't seem (from my analysis) to be aerodynamic.

I included an extrapolated Vd from the specified mach alone, to illustrate that the speeds we're talking about lie in this uncertain envelope.

Unless we can confirm that these limits are structural, and are not for any other reason, then I'm not happy with saying the airframe is physically limited to those speeds. What say you?

Originally posted by exponent
This gives the impression that either AA11 or UA175 was flying over its Vmo by this amount, so I set out to verify the figures. Quite a few websites give two numbers for 767s that are relevant:
Vmo (maximum operating velocity): 0.86 Mach
Md (maximum dive): 0.91 Mach

Sigh.

If you can't understand the difference between Vmo and Mmo, it is useless to waste any more time with you.

Click here.

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet

What does it say under Vmo?


You should also familiarize yourself with Equivalent Airspeed.

This was all explained in a short 45 minute video I linked for you above with interviews with 757/767 Capts from American and United Airlines. If you refuse to take 45 mins to inform yourself, I feel no need to inform you further and rather watch you stumble.

ISunTzu/Beachnut, keep telling others and yourself that a V-G cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known. You only reduce your already diminished credibility. You serve as an excellent example for those who blindly follow anything the govt tells them.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
This was all explained in a short 45 minute video I linked for you above with interviews with 757/767 Capts from American and United Airlines. If you refuse to take 45 mins to inform yourself, I feel no need to inform you further and rather watch you stumble.

The arrogance in this post is pretty astounding. I couldn't care less if you leave me to 'stumble' or whatever. I'm already reading through a 55 page thread just trying to catch up with claims you refuse to elucidate on.

If you want to feel good about yourself because you are so knowledgeable then fine, but perhaps you could answer my question as to the lack of any obvious correlation with regards to Vd/Vfc in this TCDS

Exponent,

If it appears I am short with you, it is because all your questions have been answered and you refuse to inform yourself and instead stumble through the information with conviction and arrogance yourself.

With that said. These are the items you need to learn.

767 speeds

Vmo = 360
Mmo = .86M

Vd = 420
Md = .91M

Learn these terms.

Indicated Airspeed
Calibrated Airspeed
True Airspeed
Equivalent Airspeed
Groundspeed
Crossover Altitude
Parasitic Drag
Induced Drag
Wave Drag
Critical Mach
L/D Max Chart
V-G Diagram

Research these references -

NTSB Radar Impact Speed Study
NTSB Video Impact Speed Study
EA990 - wreckage, wing panels, left engine, horizontal stab skin
RADES Primary Radar errors

If you want to spend less time, click this link as it is all spelled out for you in a 45 min video. Sources are shown so you can reference yourself.

Full Film - 9/11 World Trade Center Attack

And if you're feeling really brave, use this in your calculations as your JREF obfuscation brigade still doesn't understand EAS takes into consideration compressibility.



That should be enough to get you started and somewhat up to speed so you can actually debate the topic.

You're not a dumb guy. I see that. You're not the type who will repeat over and over that a V-G cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known, after you've been shown over and over how it is done.

I have confidence you will get yourself up to speed.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Exponent,

If it appears I am short with you, it is because all your questions have been answered and you refuse to inform yourself and instead stumble through the information with conviction and arrogance yourself.

I don't refuse to inform myself, I've already read 20 pages of this thread since you requested that I do so, I've checked up on what I can and asked questions for what I don't understand. You've chastised me for this and accused me of being blind to information.

I'll certainly take into account the points you list, but it will take some time to go through everything. While I do that, can you come up with any good reason for the large gradient during a small window of altitudes in the plot I made, or did I plot that wrong too?

I have found that the FAA has birdstrike regulations up to about 3km, I'm wondering if Vd here is the maximum speed a 767 can survive a birdstrike. Perhaps other countries require birdstrike up to 6km? This would be consistent with the information I have found about typical bird altitudes.

You can't expect me to get up to speed on a 55 page thread, nearly an hour of video and frankly an entire field of research in one day. Cut me some slack.

Vd was referenced here just two short pages ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is sourced to the definition provided by the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics.

reply to post by Orion7911


Orion, sorry to break up the "Tif" fan club of one, but.....

TifinLA has demonstrated and had total command of the debate from start to finish while the skeptics OS supporters have failed yet again to disprove the evidence she's put forth that overwhelmingly proves beyond a doubt, the story of real boeing jets having hit the towers, is pure fantasy.

I tend to think that "Tif", and any other "PilotsFor9/11Truth" propagandists spewing the same old, tired CONSTANTLY REPETITIVE garbage, have "bedazzled" and confused you, with their ploys. AND, it has been shown each time that EVERY claim made by that "group" has been in error.

It seems that YOU might wish to take another look at their specific claims RE: the WTC Towers, and what hit them.

.....Because, the "P4T" do NOT dispute that American Airlines flight 11 was responsible for impacting the North Tower. NOR, do they dispute that "an airplane" hit the South Tower.

The entirety of their "schtick" here is the ridiculous attempts to say "Looky!! We have charts and graphs that say 'structural damage' after an airspeed of 420 knots!! WE WIN!!!! It could NOT have been a "stock" Boeing 767!!!"

What rubbish nonsense.

Firstly, the term "structural damage" is not specific...but, disingenuously used by the "P4T" to plant the idea (enhanced by their stupid videos) in those not familiar enough with aviation that the airliner would IMMEDIATELY and CATASTROPHICALLY fall apart as soon as it exceeded 420 knots.

"Structural damage" can refer to a wide range of various things "breaking" that comprise the structure of the airframe....it does not mean "immediate aerodynamic failure" that would result in the wings falling off (as shown in one of those idiotic videos I mentioned, in animation).

"They" are using this figure of Vd (420 knots) as some sort of "magic" number..."they" further diminish their "argument" by attempting to call up any 'comparable' instances of airspeed exceedances (**)...and they FAIL each and every time. They are intentionally TWISTING and OMITTING salient facts of previous cases, in order to confuse and "be-dazzle"....because THAT is "their" business, over at "P4T". To SELL, SELL, SELL and bring in the do-re-mi. ($$$)

~~~(**) Which, as I have pointed out already in THIS thread, are NOT 'comparable" by any stretch of the imagination. Seems to fool those who don't know any better, though.....pity.~~~

The entire "organization" of "P4T" is devoted to exactly that motive. It is shown very clearly, to anyone who bothers to examine them, and "their" claims more closely.

BTW, for any other "Tif" fans out there....not ONCE has there been a valid alternative 'theory' proposed that is viable, and logical and has ANY sort of corroborative evidence.

All "they" can do is wave "their" hands wildly, and mutter vaguely about some sort of "modified" airplane that "resembled" the United Airlines flight 175, a Boeing 767-200....but there is NO MEAT to any of these assertions.....instead, "they" merely come up with one cockamamie "idea" and "claim" after another...completely ignoring the EVIDENCE for United 175; especially the FACT that the airplane, by Secondary Radar, for the entire flight, to impact. (The hijacker/extremist pilot on THAT flight merely changed the transponder codes, rather than turning the unit to STBY, or "off". Unlike the three others that were hijacked that morning).

What is seen is yet another person who has "fallen for" the hype, and parrots the "company propaganda motto", in each and every post. It is blatantly obvious that the assertions are severely lacking in substance, (but are heavy on innuendo, colors, and "dazzling graphics" in order to fool the inexperienced amongst you)....so resorting to the "boiler plate" approach is all "they" have avaliable in their toolkit.

Tif is *still* kickin azz....and the score isn't even close... In fact, it looks like Tif has thrown a perfect game. Doesn't look too good for skeptics.

See above!

.... the evidence she's put forth that overwhelmingly proves beyond a doubt, the story of real boeing jets having hit the towers, is pure fantasy.

Wanna run that by us, again???

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Thank you for confirming that you have nothing.

Evidence to support your argument:

Homemade charts, opinion, conjecture.