9/11 even real pilots couldn't do it

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

I know, it is so ludicrous that I didn't bother to address it. It is like saying planes land by being thrown in the direction of the airport !

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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.

Thanks for correcting yourself.

I notice that you use the "easy" quote in your boilerplate cut and paste, even though you admit that only one person has said it.

That's kind of the definition of a strawman.

Wow, what a mess. Let me see if I can sort this out to where people can actually read it -

Originally posted by weedwhacker______
Strawman Number 1:

"easy". It is no more "easy", nor "difficult" at VMO, than at VMO +1, or VMO +100.

Xtrozero disagrees with you. Click the source link "easy" in the evidence listed here.

[snipped irrelevant rant]

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

Well, we don't have any flight test data

Are you saying a Type certificate is not based on any flight test data?

You would be wrong.

You once again demonstrate why you never put your name behind your claims as do all these REAL pilots listed here - Click

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.

According to the data decoded by Warren Stutt, it's 20 knots more. 480+

Do you only cherry pick data when it suits your bias?

[snipped Garbage In - Garbage Out rant]
_______
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.

Va/Vra was already explained to you here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was the same post where you claim a V-G diagram cannot be plotted when the V-Speeds are known.

You were wrong as usual.

Turbulence was NOT a factor on 9/11.

A northwwest wind flowing over Manhattan into the mouth of the Hudson below 1000 feet isn't turbulent?

You once again demonstrate you are not a pilot.

_______
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

It was a descent, something that is done EVERY DAY by regular Transport Category jets all over the world.

Do they perform such "descents" at Vmo+150?

No, they don't.

Do you know why?

Clearly not.

The word "dive" is intentionally misleading, for impact and to provoke a certain mental image in people's minds.

Clearly you have not reviewed the data.

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.

4nsicphd tried to explain this to you earlier in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously it didn't take. So maybe this source will?

www.pprune.org...

_______
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.

Clearly you missed this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Click it for perspective.

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

[snipped rant]

SO...anyone care to verify this latest claim?

Read the 911 Commission Report

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

Google Video Link

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.

EA990 is a Boeing 767 that suffered in flight structural failure at 425 KEAS.

Click

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 ?

Click

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.

They were able to do it when they slowed down to near landing speeds. That is why they are able to hit a runway all day, every day.

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

Please provide a list. You have failed for over 67 pages, because you cannot find one verified pilot to support the claims made that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

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?

If you think of me that, "hardly anyone agrees with you. Your ideas are very unpopular...", why do you 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.

If you think Structural failure doesn't happen above Vd, not only do you disagree with Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, but precedent also proves you wrong.

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.

Wrong.

See the NASA video embedded above.

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.

So I guess you're done here?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

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 ?

Click

From your link

It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue.

You are not being asked to completely resolve the matter. You are in fact being asked to examine a "relative attached issue". Horrible English usage aside, your link seems to agree with the requirement that you at least consider the implications of your claims.

The link gives an example

"Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

But you are not being asked to name the perpetrators, say how it was planned, or anything like that.

You're simply being asked why someone would do what you are claiming.

I was reading the evidence Tiffany provided, and what I found is that a situation in which the factors were not all accounted for. The guys looked at one aspect of the crash and used it as a generalization for all planes, saying that because one plane didn't hold up when it reached a speed, all planes must therefor react the same way. Have there been any controlled environment tests that demonstrate what happens to the plane when it reaches those speeds?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
From your link

It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue.

Now read the statement in context. -

It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you [Tricky] refuse to address the issues [topic] by use of such disinformation tactics [by asking me to offer theory/speculation of which I cannot prove].

Update- after SIXTY-SEVEN 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 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.

Originally posted by Varemia
I was reading the evidence Tiffany provided, and what I found is that a situation in which the factors were not all accounted for. The guys looked at one aspect of the crash and used it as a generalization for all planes, saying that because one plane didn't hold up when it reached a speed, all planes must therefor react the same way. Have there been any controlled environment tests that demonstrate what happens to the plane when it reaches those speeds?

Those who blindly support the OS have not been able to provide any precedent where an aircraft exceeded it's Vmo by 150 knots, held together, and remained stable/controllable, for over 67 pages.

All examples they have provided either 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 in the case of the DC-8.

See evidence list above.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


Please provide a list. You have failed for over 67 pages, because you cannot find one verified pilot to support the claims made that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

I haven't even tried. But I'm fairly secure in my position because P4T - and you - are making no impact at all, on the aviation industry or the world at large. I assume that if what you claim was accurate then the whole industry would be exercised about it. And they're manifestly not.

So either they're all in on it or...

If you think of me that, "hardly anyone agrees with you. Your ideas are very unpopular...", why do you bother?

I don't just think this. It's demonstrably true. 3000 people in 9 years, one hundredth of the population of Toledo. Your notions are literally not popular.

As to why I bother - that has nothing to do with it. Your ideas are either true or untrue, popular or unpopular. Once again I'm flattered that you think me being interested in your posts is evidence of their importance.

If you think Structural failure doesn't happen above Vd, not only do you disagree with Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, but precedent also proves you wrong.

I don't disagree with it. What I disagree with is your contention that an aeroplane always becomes structurally compromised at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way.

Wrong.

See the NASA video embedded above.

So you contend that planes are generally flown at the same stress level as they were on 9/11?

So I guess you're done here?

Ah, so you don't disagree.

Originally posted by Varemia
I was reading the evidence Tiffany provided, and what I found is that a situation in which the factors were not all accounted for. The guys looked at one aspect of the crash and used it as a generalization for all planes, saying that because one plane didn't hold up when it reached a speed, all planes must therefor react the same way. Have there been any controlled environment tests that demonstrate what happens to the plane when it reaches those speeds?

That is one of the realities of this thing that I pointed out ages ago - that Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo and the Pilot's club claims now that every single 7X7 class aircraft is now measured by this one event - by the single Egypt Airlines aircraft mishap. That there is no deviation, that because this Egypt Air aircraft demonstrated X, every other aircraft similar in type must exhibit the exact same characteristics, regardless the environmental or aerodynamic or aeronautical circumstances.

Claiming this renders any other thing Tiffany or "Capt" Bob Balsamo or any other member of the Pilot's club highly questionable.

It kind of goes along with Tiffany's comment that "A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan." or "Capt" Bob Balsamo's comment that "When an aircraft hits its "design limits" it breaks. Period." They are wholly incorrect statements, ignorant of the science and engineering that goes on behind the scenes and are totally indicative of an inability to understand what is going on - rather, to make up some flowery line try and fool some non-aviation inclined person or ATS poster.

It is also why Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo are here on ATS and not in the halls of congress or in the offices of the FAA or NTSB or the Pilot unions trying to get support there. Tiffany and "Capt" Bob Balsamo know that if they went into any of those places and said "Look...A radar only tracks a target based on what has been put into a flight plan, and when an aircraft hits its "design limits", it breaks. Period", they'd be shown the door immediately and unceremoniously. That won't happen here at ATS. They are allowed to spew this "stuff" nonstop.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you [Tricky] refuse to address the issues [topic] by use of such disinformation tactics [by asking me to offer theory/speculation of which I cannot prove].

But I'm not refusing to address the topic. I've answered everything you've asked, sometimes several times.

I'm asking you to examine the implications of what you're claiming. Put simply, you claim to have evidence that the planes were either altered or not real. I can't see why either possibility would be true.

I repeat, I'm not asking you to speculate about who did this, or why, or even how. There's no need at all to "solve" the whole crime. Just to account for your beliefs.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Please provide a list. You have failed for over 67 pages, because you cannot find one verified pilot to support the claims made that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150.

I haven't even tried.

So, your claim is based on pure speculation. Well, at least you're consistent.

But I'm fairly secure in my position because P4T - and you - are making no impact at all, on the aviation industry or the world at large.

And yet you are here, day after day, night after night. Arguing issues you think are "unpopular".

Again, ALPA represents 9% of the pilot population, they have been in existence for over 70 years. They are the most powerful lobby in the Aviation Industry today.

P4T has been around 4 years and has a faster growth rate than ALPA.

Perspective.

If you think of me that, "hardly anyone agrees with you. Your ideas are very unpopular...", why do you bother?

If you think Structural failure doesn't happen above Vd, not only do you disagree with Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, but precedent also proves you wrong.

[snipped circular logic]

So you contend that planes are generally flown at the same stress level as they were on 9/11?

All aircraft are stressed during certification.

Please see the Type Certificate Data Sheet which is derived from such testing and the NASA video embedded above.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


According to the NTSB the first officer of EA 990 effectively put the plane down in the Atlantic Ocean while the Captain tried to stop him. NTSB say, in relation to the first officer, that " the reason was not determined".

There is plenty of speculation elsewhere though that the first officer was commiting suicide. In any event, it clearly has no relevance to a Boeing 767 flying at 1000' at 510 knots.

Your evasion of my question is noted. I am not asking you for chapter and verse but just an idea as to why you should suppose that considerable efforts and risk were considered worthwhile to get UA 175 to hit at 80 knots more than AA 11.

I find it hard to imagine that you believe in something which is ostensibly pointless without trying to find a point.

Originally posted by Alfie1
There is plenty of speculation elsewhere though that the first officer was commiting[sic] suicide. In any event, it clearly has no relevance to a Boeing 767 flying at 1000' at 510 knots.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the term "Equivalent Airspeed".

Here is the link again, I highly recommend you read it this time.

Click

Your evasion of my question is noted.

I'm not evading, you just refuse to inform yourself and keep repeating the same nonsense.

No worries. I'll just keep repeating the same links till you learn about aviation.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


So, your claim is based on pure speculation. Well, at least you're consistent.

Well, no it's not. It's based on the sure and certain knowledge that your ideas have very little - hardly any - currency in the aviation community.

And yet you are here, day after day, night after night. Arguing issues you think are "unpopular".

This is becoming desperate. Your ideas are, as I say above and you ignore, manifestly unpopular. Tiny numbers of people agree with you.

Again, ALPA represents 9% of the pilot population, they have been in existence for over 70 years. They are the most powerful lobby in the Aviation Industry today. P4T has bee around 4 years and has a faster growth rate than ALPA. Perspective.

When did I mention ALPA?

The fact remains that minuscule numbers of people ascribe to P4T's theories. This is a simple fact. The aviation industry has so far failed to embrace your ideas. That suggests to me that they lack merit.

If you think Structural failure doesn't happen above Vd, not only do you disagree with Boeing and the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics, but precedent also proves you wrong.

You are grasping at straws. Intentionally misunderstanding what I write because you know it refutes you.

Once again, I don't contend that. What I do take issue with is your assertion that all structural failures occur at exactly the same point and in exactly the same way.

[snipped circular logic] of which there was none.

All aircraft are stressed during certification.

Please see the Type Certificate Data Sheet which is derived from such testing and the NASA video embedded above.

Right. So that means they are generally and routinely flown at the same stress levels as evinced on 9/11? Which is what you - for some extraordinary reason - seemed to claim above.

I think not.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Oh right, you are not evading. Just can't answer.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA


So, your claim is based on pure speculation. Well, at least you're consistent.

Well, no it's not. It's based on the sure and certain knowledge that your ideas have very little - hardly any - currency in the aviation community.

And you know this how? How exactly are you so "sure"? Have you polled all pilots in the aviation community?


Again Tricky, if the claims made by REAL and verified pilots are so "ridiculous", why are you unable to find one verified pilot to support your claims?

Not even weedwhacker wants to put his name behind his claims unlike all the REAL pilots who question the OS. I don't blame him, as there is not one pilot on this planet who would agree with weedwhacker that a V-G diagram cannot be plotted when the V-speeds were known.

This is becoming desperate. Your ideas are, as I say above and you ignore, manifestly unpopular. Tiny numbers of people agree with you.

It doesn't matter how many people agree.

Again - Click

It is you becoming desperate, that is why you are here arguing, day after day, night after night, with people you virtually think are 'nuts'. (err, "unpopular" :@@

The fact remains that minuscule numbers of people ascribe to P4T's theories.

Let us know when you poll all aviation professionals who have thoroughly reviewed all of the data, then you may have an argument. Until then, your above claim is a logical fallacy and pure speculation.

(Also let us know when you find a theory at Pilotsfor911truth.org. You may want to read the top of the home page and pay particular attention to the underlined sentence)

What I do take issue with is your assertion that all structural failures occur at exactly the same point and in exactly the same way.

Please quote where I made such a claim. Be sure to provide a link. (Hint - I never made such a claim Tricky, please keep your strawmans to a minimum as readers may start to see a pattern with you.)

Right. So that means they are generally and routinely flown at the same stress levels as evinced on 9/11?

If you review the evidence, you will note that aircraft are tested to their stress limits during certification, Type Certificate Data sheets are derived from these tests, and precedent is also offered. Those limits are well below the limits reported on 9/11. 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.

Let us know when you get some evidence for your claims. You have failed for over 67 pages.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Oh right, you are not evading. Just can't answer.

So you still don't understand Equivalent airspeed.

Typical.

Let us know when you do.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Oh right, you are not evading. Just can't answer.

So you still don't understand Equivalent airspeed.

Typical.

Let us know when you do.

Can you please give me an idea of how equivalent airspeed has anything to do with my question. Which is, why would anyone modify/ substitute UA 175 so that it hit 80 knots faster than AA 11 ? You are proposing a situation where UA 175, as a basic Boeing 767, could not have hit at 510 knots. Surely you must have some idea why the modifications/ switch were made.