9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

reply to post by weedwhacker


As usual, weedwhacker is not able to provide any source for his claims/quotes.

As usual, weedwhacker attempts character assassination instead of discussing the data/facts.

As usual, weedwhacker makes a post with nothing of value.

As usual, weedwhacker STILL has no evidence for his claims that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

As usual, weedwhacker fails, as he has been doing for the past 66 pages.

reply to post by Varemia

I would suggest that weedwhacker perhaps contact an administrator and get board verification...

Already done, mate. Already done.....

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

You really don't expect him to put his name on here and allow hoards of truthers to berate his airline company and harass him personally?

If they don't want it to happen to them, they why do they do it to others from the comfort of their anonymity?

Why is "weedwhacker" perhaps the only "pilot" on this planet that doesn't know a V-G diagram can be plotted when the V-speeds are known?


New page update -

After SIXTY-SIX pages, the score remains -

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 Air 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, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.



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 = N/A
Precedent = N/A
Verified Experts = N/A


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...". You have been failing for more than NINE years.

I HAVE A QUESTION...FOR THE TRUSTERS HERE..

now i'm finding it hard to understand the motivation,to sit in these 9/11 forums trying to de-bunk anything and everything concerning 9/11..WHAT IS IN IT FOR YOU ????..why would you spent so much time and effort in your life,trying to dis-credit anything concerning 9/11 truth...surely you would reach a point were you say to yourself..

"hey these guys are just mad..i'm leaveing em to it"

as you all say,it all happen like the govenment said,nothing will come of it anyway,so whats your motivation,your unyielding almost repetitive behaviour if you like...??..

this is not a attack its just a vaild question...?

my motivation,is i lost 2 close schoolfriends that day,in tower 1....whats yours..??

not only that, but the print of the impact was computer generated on later pics....it was too small by three feet!
then some tried to explain that maybe because of the wing flex.....NO
not three feet. we have some sheet here

Originally posted by snapperski
I HAVE A QUESTION...FOR THE TRUSTERS HERE..

now i'm finding it hard to understand the motivation,to sit in these 9/11 forums trying to de-bunk anything and everything concerning 9/11..WHAT IS IN IT FOR YOU ????..why would you spent so much time and effort in your life,trying to dis-credit anything concerning 9/11 truth...surely you would reach a point were you say to yourself..

"hey these guys are just mad..i'm leaveing em to it"

as you all say,it all happen like the govenment said,nothing will come of it anyway,so whats your motivation,your unyielding almost repetitive behaviour if you like...??..

this is not a attack its just a vaild question...?

my motivation,is i lost 2 close schoolfriends that day,in tower 1....whats yours..??

According to Tricky and a few others who blindly support the OS, they do it because... .wait for it... "No one cares!".

Irony

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


If you are putting forward, which you are, the proposition that UA 175, as a a standard Boeing 767, could not have struck at 510 knots, because it would have shaken to bits, then you are in fact obliged to suggest what you think happened. By constantly dancing around it you simply give the impression that you have no faith in your proposals.

You will not address the obvious question that if UA 175 had to be beefed up to crash at 510 knots why was AA 11 left to crash at 430 knots. What was the point and extra work and risk involved that made it important for UA 175 to be going 80 knots faster ?

You have tried to shift the ground to the competence of the pilots but as they both had commercial pilot's licenses it is not obvious that they would have been hard pressed to hit buildings 208' wide and over 1300' tall.

reply to post by snapperski


My motivation is that I want to find and spread the truth of the matter. That's all there is to it. I have yet to see anything that really explains things. There are only "I don't understand this" and "I think something we've never heard of was used."

With this plane idea, the argument is that some planes were feasible, but the one was impossible because of structural limits that were put in place because if the limits are breached, the aircraft will break apart or become extremely unstable. I know for a fact that the plane that hit the second tower descended quite a bit before it hit the tower. Just look at 2:50 on this video:



You can see it in the distance as it descends, and then it pulls up slightly before it hits the tower. I can see it clearly in my mind someone at the controls, pulling it that way.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

If you are putting forward, which you are, the proposition that UA 175, as a a standard Boeing 767, could not have struck at 510 knots, because it would have shaken to bits, then you are in fact obliged to suggest what you think happened.

I am? Can you please show me that law?

Again, 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.

Basically, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof through pure speculation because you know it cannot be proven without parts, so then you can demand "how it was done". Again, textbook disinfo tactic 14.

You are also attempting to employ disinfo tactic number 19

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by

You will not address the obvious question that if UA 175 had to be beefed up to crash at 510 knots why was AA 11 left to crash at 430 knots.

Please provide evidence that the aircraft which were used on 9/11 were AA11 (N334AA), UA175 (N612UA), and standard 767's. You have been failing for over 66 pages and all evidence that has been provided conflicts with your claims.

What was the point and extra work and risk involved that made it important for UA 175 to be going 80 knots faster ?

See Disinfo Tactic 14 above and please try to refrain from using it in every one of your posts.

You have tried to shift the ground to the competence of the pilots but as they both had commercial pilot's licenses it is not obvious that they would have been hard pressed to hit buildings 208' wide and over 1300' tall.

"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."

I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Source

He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source

instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.

"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"

got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." www.capecodonline.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Washington Post, 10/15/2001

"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)

flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.

" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)

More here...
Click

When put into perspective, the WTC was to a 767 as a Playing dart is to this bullseye.

Basically - Two people, who have never played darts before, hit this red-line bulls-eye below, on their first try....



... that is, if you blindly believe what ever your govt tells you...

Read more here regarding the math.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by snapperski

 

My motivation is that I want to find and spread the truth of the matter.

If we all had the "truth of the matter" and had all the answers, there wouldn't be this growing list of Patriots questioning the OS.

patriotsquestion911.com...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Your response is typical. You are not prepared to pursue your ideas through to logical conclusions. Not entirely surprising because the logical conclusions are that your ideas are nonsense.

And, as soon as the going gets tough you, you throw in whether the Boeing 767's are the planes we thought they were. So despite saying you were not claiming that the flights had been substituted or modified it is apparent that that is just what you are doing.

So, as regards substitution, I will ask you the same question I posed about modification. Why was it necessary to make UA 175 hit at 80 knots faster ? What was so important about that that it was worth the additional risks.

You keep banging on about the parts but plane parts were recovered in New York. Any evidence of modification ?

So, after 66 pages, you have no proof that AA 11 and UA 175 were anything other than standard Boeing 767's and you can offer no proof that a Boeing 767 at 1000' cannot reach 510 knots without falling to bits. All you can do is parrot what P49/11t tell you.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
If I make a claim, I expect to back it up with evidence. Obviously I cannot "prove" the aircraft were modified

Okay. Then what's the point of this thread?

Your evidence - which I disagree with, of course, but which you are obviously happy with - means that the planes were modified or did not exist. You have already rejected the third possibility, that the speed measurements were wrong.

Since you have no evidence for your contention then... well, good luck with your goal of alerting everybody to some kind of wrongdoing. Because anyone with an open mind will conclude that nobody would bother to modify one plane just to fly it a bit faster. And as you openly admit, you can't prove anything.

What I find odd is that you don't seem to care about this. You are pathologically opposed to finding out what happened, or even considering it. One must conclude that your goal is not to find out what happened, but something else.

Originally posted by Alfie1
Your response is typical. You are not prepared to pursue your ideas through to logical conclusions. Not entirely surprising because the logical conclusions are that your ideas are nonsense.

They are not my "ideas", they are facts as supported by the evidence and highly trained verified experts.

Here is it again -

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 Air 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, well below Vmo+150.... or was modified to exceed it's manufacturer's set limits in the case of the DC-8.

Numerous verified experts - (Many posted in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...), more listed here.

Please let us know when you get some evidence for your claims. You been failing for 66 pages.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


According to Tricky and a few others who blindly support the OS, they do it because... .wait for it... "No one cares!".

Irony

I suspect you know that that isn't what I wrote. Or perhaps you do think that, in which case your intellect is in question.

I didn't say I didn't care. I said that in the grand scheme of things, hardly anyone agrees with you. Your ideas are very unpopular, partly because their implications are so self-evidently ludicrous.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
If I make a claim, I expect to back it up with evidence. Obviously I cannot "prove" the aircraft were modified

Okay. Then what's the point of this thread?

"911 - Even Real pilots Couldn't do it".

Your evidence - which I disagree with, of course

You disagree with Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics?

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet


Find where is says "Vd" and the corresponding speed in the above document based on wind tunnel and flight tests.

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



What does it say in the area outside the Vd line?

You disagree with them?

Have you told them?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Here it is yet again...repeat;--- wash, rinse, repeat,
;---wash, rinse, repeat;--- wash, rinse, repeat;--- wash, rinse, repeat....ad infinitum. :shk:

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.

______
Strawman Number 1:

"easy". It is no more "easy", nor "difficult" at Vmo, than at Vmo +1, or Vmo +100. What is the Vmo for a Boeing 757? (Switching gears, for a moment...since we DO NOT have the DFDR readouts from AA 11 and UA 175. The DFDRs were not recovered in the debris of the collapsed WTC Towers).

SO, will use the DFDR info from AA 77. A Boeing 757, and 767, share a common type rating because they were designed, from the beginning by Boeing that way, as a marketing advantage for potential sales. The control "feel" to pilots is very similar --- the 767 is actually a bit more "crisp" on the controls, a tad more responsive --- which might surprise non-pilots, seeing that it actually has "heavier" operating weights. It is a result of not only control surface design, but also the hydraulic actuators that actually provide the force to move the control surfaces.

The published Vmo for the 757 is 350 knots. Versus 360 for the 767. (For type rating purposes, these minor differences aren't important...a type rating covers airplanes based on commonality of MANY factors. And minor differences, between models within that category, are learned, memorized and trained for in what's called "differences training", in order to qualify individuals on any subsequent equipment variations).

Now, sorry for all that, but background info is important to get out of the way, for clarity, in order to continue:

Strawman #1, (reminder): "easy" at Vmo+150

Well, we don't have any flight test data (too bad, the DFDR from UA 175 would sure have been useful...however, not certain IF the ADC - "Air Data Computer" - that compiles the airspeed information for the DFDR would have been able to record that airspeed. That is something that is moot, at this point anyway).

However, we DO have the DFDR from AA 77, as I mentioned earlier. Last recorded KIAS (knots indicated airspeed) that I have seen, from the NTSB video re-creation, made from the DFDR readings, is 462 knots.

THAT is 112 knots above Vmo for that airplane. AND, watching the video re-creation, the pilot (Hani Hanjour, in this case...his name will come up again later, in this post....) is able to "steer" the airplane into the crash with the side of the Pentagon, with no apparent difficulty. WHY, then, do the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" put up this strawman, repeatedly? A few extra (38) knots; and remember those (UA 175) are best estimates, from radar and video evidence calculations, subject to some error (though not more than about ten knots, I'd say).
_______
Strawman Number 2: "Va+220"

The V-speed labelled "Va" is actually designed more for General Aviation type airplanes, NOT Air Transport Category jets. We use a similar metric for a speed that results in the same sort of "protection" against structural damage from excessive G forces....it is the "turbulence penetration speed." It is THAT speed that is being used as a basis for the "P4T" (abbreviation, just easier to type) Strawman #2 claim.

Turbulence was NOT a factor on 9/11. In any case, the hijackers flying the airplanes had no concerns for the long-term life of the airframes -- which is partly the basis for the turbulence penetration speed recommendations.

_______
Strawman Number 3: (the trifecta!) --- "--and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank

Hoo, boy!!! Where to begin?

I grow somewhat weary, repeating myself (though, I do not have to as often as some, here...). First, the "dive". It was a descent, something that is done EVERY DAY by regular Transport Category jets all over the world. The word "dive" is intentionally misleading, for impact and to provoke a certain mental image in people's minds.

It takes very, very little nose-down pitch attitude to cause an increase in airspeed, in a descent. In normal airline flights, you (as passenger) would not even notice the "deck angle" (sometimes referred to) when sitting in back....even when the airspeed has approached Vmo. Happens very often, normal day-to-day operations. As long as in smooth air, of course. Because, normal descents, engines are pulled back to idle power settings. Only need about 5-7 degrees nose-down....ten at most. BUT, at ten nose-down, clean configuration, flight idle power, you WILL eventually exceed Vmo --- so, pitch attitude is shallowed as desired speed is reached. In this example, your PITCH attitude directly controls your airspeed.

NOW, all things being equal...holding the same pitch attitude, if you ADD power, you will accelerate even more rapidly than just from gravity alone.

In any case, to level (or decrease descent rate) from those already quite shallow pitch attitudes is NOT difficult, NOR does it exert excessive G-forces, when done smoothly, by proper use of the elevator controls. YOU don't notice it, do you, on your airline flights? Maybe a slight increase in G....about 0.2 or 0.3 We aren't talking fighter jet maneuvers, here!!!

OK, where were we? Oh, still on about the "G's", this time saying "while rolling" them on and "cranking into a 38 degree" bank. Well, again the hyperbolic use of the word "cranking". Implies some sort of abrupt control manipulation, doesn't it? Hogwash. But, even IF the ailerons were deflected abruptly, THAT doesn't affect the g-force. It is when holding level flight (maintaining altitude), AT a particular angle of bank, that gives a certain G, based on angle. You CAN add to it, IF leveling (changing pitch attitude in a nose-up direction) at the same time....but, usually the human instinct is to "feel" the g, and adjust accordingly. Hard to explain, unless you can be in a real airplane, to see and feel for yourself....and certain readers (and/or posters) whose only experience is on desktop PC flight simulators won't understand this.

BTW, you can easily look up the G-forces for various angles of bank, in level, unaccelerated turns. 38 degrees = 1.3 Gs. This calculator can be used to play with bank angles, and the resulting Gs. (Note: The airspeed field is not relevant....the G is the same, regardless of speed. It is directly related to bank angle. Just enter any speeds in the first two fields).

_______
Strawman Number 4: " to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error"

What rubbish! What does that even mean, and why do they keep saying it?? The HIT the buildings. Their aim wasn't to "within 25 feet"!!! Nonsense, that is.

_______
Strawman Number 5: "pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots."

Ahh. I see the "script" has been edited, somewhat. Used to be, "by a pilot who couldn't ...blah, blah".

When it was pointed out, to "Tiff", earlier that the pilot of UA 175 was NOT Hani Hanjour (remember him, from earlier?), "she" (and I guess the "PTB" at "P4T") amended their little tale of fiction.

SO...anyone care to verify this latest claim? It may not be a strawman, exactly...IF the hijacker that flew UA 175 actually DID have "less experience" than Hanjour (I presume they mean total time??). So, we will leave that one open, until verified...for now.


Finally, a blast from the past. Found an older posting from John Lear. Remember HIM? "Member" of "P4T" who, it seems, isn't flaunted as often as before...guess "they" don't like his "no planes theory" ideas??

The discussion in this other thread turned to "flutter" (Another favorite bugaboo of the "P4T"):

Originally posted by johnlear
I checked back at what I said and I don't see myself saying that the Pentagon jet would suffer wing flutter at 350 knots. Your statement is untrue and its also ridiculous. Its as ridiculous as you saying 'you doubt' that flutter will affect the 757 below about 420 knots. Flutter is designed out of modern jets. It does not matter what speed they are going. They could be at terminal velocity straight down a mine shaft and the wings will not flutter.

Here's full the post, in context.


I tried to make this as comprehensive as possible --- as always, I expect some laypeople might have questions.....

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


According to Tricky and a few others who blindly support the OS, they do it because... .wait for it... "No one cares!".

Irony

I suspect you know that that isn't what I wrote.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But you're right, it wasn't you who said the words "No one cares" (at least, I don;t feel like digging for it), it was Xtrozero, the alleged "pilot" who claims it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150 and who also claimed Mach Tuck is exclusive only to T--Tails.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


You don't in fact have evidence that a Boeing 767 cannot fly at 510 knots at 1000 ' without breaking up because no-one has done it. All you have is speculation.

But, just answer me this one question. Why was it important to modify/substitute planes, with all the risks involved, in order that UA 175 could hit 80 knots faster than AA 11. Where was the gain ?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

"911 - Even Real pilots Couldn't do it".

But several of your pilots say it was possible, and that they could do it. Just that it would be difficult.

The vast majority of the aviation industry seems to have no problem with it either.

But that's beside the point. I'm not asking what the title of the thread is, but rather what you hope to achieve with it. Because you seem adamant that you don't have the evidence you need to prove your claims. So why bother?

You disagree with Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics?

Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certificate Data Sheet


Find where is says "Vd" and the corresponding speed in the above document based on wind tunnel and flight tests.

You already did this didn't you? Could you republish the diagram you made?

I don't disagree with them. We've done this. What I disagree with is your contention that structural failure happens in a completely predictable manner at an exact point. Even the term itself is ambiguous.

I also disagree with your contention that the small number of examples where planes have been severely tested and flown on is suspicious. Because in the general scheme of things people don't try to fly planes at that level of stress.

All this is a pointless rehash, and a dodge by you. You don't think the planes were altered, you're not a noplaner, you don't think the speed was wrong.

So what do you think? Nothing, apparently.

I have to add once more that the dart analogy is a horrible, horrible comparison. The guys didn't take the plane from point A, turn on its thrust aimed at the towers, and just hope for the best. They actively aimed it during the flight. I even posted a video showing the changes in elevation and angle as the plane approached the tower from a distance. You can't do that with a dart.