9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

If you are not claiming that the 9/11 Boeing 757's and 767's were modified or substituted then the inescapable conclusion is that they did what they did.

All evidence provided by Boeing, NTSB, the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, precedent of numerous events, and a growing list of verified and qualified experts disagree with you.

Where is your evidence that the aircraft were standard Boeing 767's? You have failed to provide any for almost SIXTY pages!

Again Alfie, I guess you still believe in Santa Claus because no one has been able to prove he doesn't exist? Be sure to record him coming down your chimney as you track him on NORAD radar this Dec.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I don't know who these others are who do not agree with me but if you are not even claiming that any 9/11 aircraft were modified or substituted then I really don't see what is the alternative to the original aircraft performing as they did. Santa Claus or no Santa Claus.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I don't know who these others are who do not agree with me ...

patriotsquestion911.com...

Click it.

Here's more -

Capt Dan Govatos


Capt Russ Wittenberg


Capt Ralph Kolstad Interview (mp3)

Capt Rusty Aimer and Capt Ralph Kolstad Interviewed (vimeo video)


NASA Flight Director Confirms Aircraft Speed As" Elephant In The Room"


Credentials of the above -

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com

Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)


Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career

What are your quals and experience in aviation Alfie?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I have never said I had any aviation qualifications but that doesn't preclude me from pointing out that if you claim a particular 9/11 aircraft could not have performed in a particular way, while at the same time saying you have never claimed there was any modification or substitution, then there is obviously a logical hole.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I have never said I had any aviation qualifications

So you have none. Thank you for being honest.

but that doesn't preclude me from pointing out that if you claim a particular 9/11 aircraft could not have performed in a particular way,

It's not me claiming it. It is Boeing (as set and defined by Vd), the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, numerous events of precedent, and numerous verified experts.

Did you miss all the evidence I posted? Need me to post it again?

while at the same time saying you have never claimed there was any modification or substitution, then there is obviously a logical hole.

The only "logical hole" is your logical fallacy argument from ignorance of claiming that since it hasn't been proven the aircraft were not standard, then it must be so.

Update - the score remains after SIXTY 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, Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics
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


You have cut the ground from beneath your own feet by admitting " I'm not claiming they were modified or substituted ".

What else is left then but that the 9/11 flights were undertaken by the original Boeing 757's and 767's ?

You are trying to inject life into a dead horse by reference to a plane exceeding manufacturers guidelines but the hi-jackers were obviously not concerned with what it said on the tin.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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

So what are you actually saying -

The planes were holographs, no planes hit the buildings?

It was not Flight 77, 11, or 175 that hit the buildings?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Numerous other pilots who are verified and understand airspeed limitations also disagree with you Xtrozero. Click here to see them.

patriotsquestion911.com...

What is the holdup Tiff? After nine years you got about 75 pilots with a handful at best actually active. You should have 10,000s backing you all by now if what you suggest has even a remote amount of reality as part of it, but it doesn't and here we sit as you toot your 911 truther horn and no one cares to listen...sorry.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

You have cut the ground from beneath your own feet by admitting " I'm not claiming they were modified or substituted ".

What else is left then but that the 9/11 flights were undertaken by the original Boeing 757's and 767's ?

You are trying to inject life into a dead horse by reference to a plane exceeding manufacturers guidelines but the hi-jackers were obviously not concerned with what it said on the tin.

If I make a claim, I expect to back it up with evidence. Obviously I cannot "prove" the aircraft were modified as I do not have the parts. Just as you cannot prove the aircraft were standard, because you cannot provide the parts.

All evidence thus far points to the fact that the aircraft as reported could not achieve the speeds reported as well as not able to be controlled by a "hijacker" who had less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway at 65 knots in a 172.

Let us know when you have some evidence for your claim instead of assumption, speculation or "because the govt told me so...". You and your kind have been failing for more than 60 pages.

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Anyway, here is his source - www.airlinesafety.com...

It appears the same source thinks a 747SP is a turboprop.

The tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum instead of steel.

No, he is talking about two different Incidents in that paragraph then linking over to a new page:

www.airlinesafety.com...
The tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum instead of steel. When one of the rods failed, the elevator was loose and began to flutter, causing excessive loads on the horizontal stabilizer, which then broke off.

I also mention the takeoff crash of the UAL DC-8 freighter, due to full nose up stab trim, in my Editorial on CRM/CLR.

Please show us the link to the "tail fell off a turboprop airliner because the elevator control rods were made out of aluminum"

Is he saying a DC-8 is a "turboprop airliner"?

He would be wrong there as well.

Thanks for providing the link though, even mods make mistakes from time to time.

Pleasure is mine.

Now can you please reference in the NTSB report where it says China 006 "exceeded the speed of sound" as your source claimed?

Click here for a reminder.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
extra DIV