Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by Shephardmix


No, 9/11 was an act of war, not a crime. You can keep quoting P4T all you want. It's not going to make any of it true.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by trebor451
Click here to learn more about this warning.[/url]

lol...yeah, ok...fine

Rephrased:

"Shephardmix", oh ye of 13 posts and everyone mentioning or referencing verbatim past material from Pilots for 9/11 Truth that we have all see here before, please tell us...can an aircraft fly beyond it's "structural design limits" (which structural limit? Take your pick....wings, fuselage, empenage, tail assembly, windscreen, whatever) - to the right of your colorful hand-made and hand-drawn charts and either a) not suffer any structural failure, major or otherwise or b) suffer some level of failure in some capacity, and keep flying?

We'll await your answer.

Exactly, ANOK - on the speed of the plane in the video.

You know - an amateur could not drive even one lap in the Daytona 500 and no one reading this doubts that statement. However, millions of people take for granted that an amateur could fly a 757. That is the power of ignorance.

A large passenger jet can not "fly" at even 400 mph at light post altitude.

Probably not even close to 300 mph.

The huge high-bypass engines would stall dead as a door nail if the wings we still attached, that is.

Even if the plane could physically fly at 300 mph 100 feet off the ground - no one - not even a computer could control the aircraft.

I am not writing for the obfuscators here who argue based on some sort of ideology and ignore all reason and science.

If your identity is wrapped up in the official story of 9/11 then do watch this video because it includes the statement of a real (not a a virtual) airline pilot with thusands of hours of flight time explaining exactly why no one could fly a plane the way the official story.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave the plane in that vid is not doing 500mph, probably doing around 200, if that.

Find a vid of an amateur pilot actually doing 500mph at that height, and you might have something. Otherwise you are comparing tortoises and hares.

reply to post by BRAVO949


To be fair, the pilots had training in how to move a plane around. They didn't have to start the plane up or land it or anything. All they had to know was how to use autopilot and then take control once they got close, and push the throttles as fast as they'd go.

The speed wasn't sustained long enough to cause damage. Maybe a few seconds longer or a minute longer and the plane would have started to break up, but they were only at that speed for the last couple seconds of their flight. The rest was just line of site steering. There is a windshield on the plane after all.

If you know anything about controlling an aircraft, though, you know that when you exceed the recommended air speed for a given altitude that it becomes more an more difficult to control the aircraft.

Your point that in testing aircraft the "test pilots" exceed the suggested limits is 100% correst but - listen with care - test pilots are pilots who are specialists at flying under difficult conditions.

Rocket scientists, brain surgeons, test pilots - the list goes something like that.

"Guy who could not fly a Cessna 172 is on the other side of the universe of the list in which test pilot is third!

Or are you saying the amateur, who according to the official story was not a test pilot but a man who was about to die was calm and cool enough or lucky enough to do what you could not do even if you were wearing a Depends ultra and in a flight-simulator?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

NEWSFLASH....during flight testing they routinely exceed those limits on the airframes.....and its not often you hear about an airliner falling apart during its flight testing.....well Airbus has been known to have issues....but not Boeing.

Those limits, in all actuality are not even close to the point where the airframe would start to come apart. I am pretty sure that if you looked in the manual, it would say that performing a roll or loop would cause the airframe to come apart, and yet, test pilots have been known to do those very things during testing.

Varemia

Your reply does sound like a reasonable reply until you consider one simple but very important point.

"All they had to know was how to use autopilot"

The autopilot in a 767 or 757 is not like the cruise control in your car.

You don't just get up to speed and flick it on.

It is not like voice activated GPS or the parking assist system either.

You don't step into the cockpit of a wide-bodied passenger aircraft, sit down and say "auto-pilot, do whatever you need to do to crash into the Pentagon. Oh and throw in a 270 degree spiral turn and miss Rumsfeld's office and hit the newly re-constructed wall behind which is the auditing department that is working on finding out where the $2.3 trillion in unaccounted spending has gone."

"All they had to know was how to use autopilot"

If the autopilot was a multiple choice sort of thing and all a person had to do was select C. "hit the side of the Pentagon" then you would be exactly right but that is not in any way the way auto pilots work.

Good try though.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

To be fair, the pilots had training in how to move a plane around. They didn't have to start the plane up or land it or anything. All they had to know was how to use autopilot and then take control once they got close, and push the throttles as fast as they'd go.

The speed wasn't sustained long enough to cause damage. Maybe a few seconds longer or a minute longer and the plane would have started to break up, but they were only at that speed for the last couple seconds of their flight. The rest was just line of site steering. There is a windshield on the plane after all.

reply to post by BRAVO949


I'm sure I don't understand it, but the pilots on 9/11 had logged a couple hundred hours of training, did they not? That's enough to figure out how to use autopilot.

Varemia,

Honestly, have you ever been in the cockpit of a small aircraft like a Cessna 172?

If you have not then try to find a away to do so.

Of course, now because the the giant 9/11 fraud you will probably never get to sit in a commercial airline cockpit but check photos or videos to see what they look like.

A person who learned how to flying a small plane could no more step into the cockpit of a 757 or 767 and hand fly it at 500 mph than you could do brain surgery (unless you are hiding you profession from us).

Airline pilots would not make $200,000 a year if any goof with a hundred hours on a 172 could fly a huge airliner as easily as driving an Austin Mini.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

I'm sure I don't understand it, but the pilots on 9/11 had logged a couple hundred hours of training, did they not? That's enough to figure out how to use autopilot.

Until someone can bring forth a reasonable answer to the following question, the Truth movement will remain a joke.

Why put forth such an overly complicated plan when you could have just blown up the buildings and have gotten the same psychological results?

Originally posted by trebor451
Take your pick....wings, fuselage, empenage, tail assembly, windscreen, whatever) - to the right of your colorful hand-made and hand-drawn charts and either a) not suffer any structural failure, major or otherwise or b) suffer some level of failure in some capacity, and keep flying?

We'll await your answer.

edit on 17-11-2011 by trebor451 because: clarification

edit on 17-11-2011 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)

Hi trebor,

Hopefully this will help you.

I would like to make it clear that one knot over Vd does not guarantee structural failure. All it means is that you are now a test pilot flying in what is defined as the Structural Failure zone.

......

Google Video Link

When going through certification, the aircraft prototypes are subject to high speeds in the wind tunnel. When the aircraft develops an onset of buffeting, flutter, instability, CG v CP.. .etc, Vd is set. If they go too far with the wind tunnel, the above video is what you get.

Then the test pilots go out and try to do it in the real airplane. If they can get to Vd without problem, then Vmo is set using the safety margin calculations mandated by the FAA.

If they experience any problems prior to Vd, a new and lower Vd is set, which in turn lowers the Vmo, or the aircraft prototype is modified to achieve those speeds.

Line Pilots are not given Vd performance speeds in their aircraft manuals as the manufacturer doesn't want pilots anywhere near Vd. They are only given redline, ie. the barber pole.. Vmo (and other lower speed limitations, such as Va, flaps, gear.. etc)

Source

So to answer your question, can an aircraft fly into their structural failure zones? yes. Many aircraft have done it as listed here. All of them suffered the consequences.

But the real question is,

Can an aircraft fly 150 knots above it's max operating into their Structural Failure Zones and remain stable,controllable or hold together, without modification for increased performance? The answer is a resounding No, as evident through data, precedent, and numerous verified experts.

Let us know when you find one that has, in an aircraft which is positively identified, before 9/11, or after.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Until someone can bring forth a reasonable answer to the following question, the Truth movement will remain a joke.

Why put forth such an overly complicated plan when you could have just blown up the buildings and have gotten the same psychological results?

Your question is a joke.

An overly complex plan, I thought it was Arabs with box cutters?

Physics doesn't care about plans, or opinions. There is overwhelming evidence that all three WTC buildings were demolished by something other than just plane impacts and fire.

But having said that, well they had to have the plane impacts for something to blame the collapses on. If they had just demolished them, then there would be even more questions, like how did the terrorists plant the bombs?

The towers were demolished to kill many birds with 2 stones.

I suppose we could look up the statistics but my bet is that fewer than 10% of Americans took physics in the senior year of high school.

Can we speculate that 7% passed and 2% remember anything years later?

The evidence is in the posts above by people who know less than nothing about physics - because what they think they know is wrong.

If 20% of Americans knew anything about physics the 9/11 fraud would have never been accepted.

Two planes, three buildings knocked down - fine for bowling - not logical by the laws of physics.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Until someone can bring forth a reasonable answer to the following question, the Truth movement will remain a joke.

Why put forth such an overly complicated plan when you could have just blown up the buildings and have gotten the same psychological results?

Your question is a joke.

An overly complex plan, I thought it was Arabs with box cutters?

Physics doesn't care about plans, or opinions. There is overwhelming evidence that all three WTC buildings were demolished by something other than just plane impacts and fire.

But having said that, well they had to have the plane impacts for something to blame the collapses on. If they had just demolished them, then there would be even more questions, like how did the terrorists plant the bombs?

The towers were demolished to kill many birds with 2 stones.

reply to post by BRAVO949


Many talk about the "laws of physics" being violated and complain that others don't understand the "laws of physics." Then, we read that three buildings falling from two aircraft impacts and uncontrolled fires are just not possible because it just couldn't happen and the "laws of physics" would have to be violated for that to happen.

What has never been explained is what "laws of physics" would have been violated? Given that there is no evidence for any other cause of collapse, what is your theory?

reply to post by BRAVO949


The guy who could not fly a Cessna, as you claim, had a flight instructor who said in his professional opinion, said terrorist had enough skill to pilot a 757 into a building. It was his crappy takeoffs and landings that caused said instructor to NOT let said terrorist take one of his planes solo.

In other words, all the crap spewed by the truth movement about the flying skills of the terrorists is another example of how the so-called truth movement lies about the facts to fit their delusions.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Shephardmix

 

And he posts a picture of an Airbus. See early statement about Airbus and their design issues.

Please provide the changes to the Airbus design as a result of the AAL587 crash. Thanks!

Originally posted by vipertech0596
It was his crappy takeoffs and landings that caused said instructor to NOT let said terrorist take one of his planes solo.

False.

"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">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">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...
Source

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

And as I pointed out to you, if you had bothered to read the whole post, one would need to know what was identified as the nosecone. Was it the composite cap that mounts to the forward most bulkhead of the airliner, OR was he referring the the nose section itself which would include the nose gear bay, and cockpit. And it is also possible that what was left of the composite cap was still present, but flattened against the bulkhead. What you fail to understand in your rant about the vertical stab, is that there is nothing behind it. Nadda, zippo, zilch. The composite cap on the front of the aircraft...has an cast aluminum bulkhead that it mounts to. In other words, when it contacts the wall, its going to get shoved aft.....against the bulkhead.

BTW....during the clean up...they discovered a flaw in the exterior walls of the Pentagon dating back to its original construction....which made it EASIER for Flight 77 to punch through it.

edit on 16-11-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

You go into details about the alleged nosecone, part and parcel of the OCT, entered as evidence into the Massaoui trial, and ignore it. Making up some half-arsed theory about how something resembling a nosecone made it all the way through to C Ring.

You wave away the vertical stabilizer and the ASCE's failure to address it, also part and parcel of the OCT, and ignore it as being irrelevant in some way without attempting to explain it.

Who's the "conspiracy theorist" here??

Why do you guys continually deny the OCT that you propose to defend??

The ASCE Report claimed that due to the alleged position of "hijacker bodies", that the cockpit was destroyed.



Logic and physics tell you that you're blowing smoke.

reply to post by vipertech0596

It was his crappy takeoffs and landings that caused said instructor to NOT let said terrorist take one of his planes solo.

Utter nonsense.

Hanjur was meant to have made what resembled a "landing" in the manouevre the OCT claims that he made to "penetrate" the first floor of the Pentagon way outside the safety envelope of a 757 at cruise speed. Didn't he?

Buck Rodgers eat your heart out.

Did you watch the "WTC 9/11 - Controlability" video linked to? The proven limitations of a 757?

Or National Security Alert?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

It was his crappy takeoffs and landings that caused said instructor to NOT let said terrorist take one of his planes solo.

Utter nonsense.

Hanjur was meant to have made what resembled a "landing" in the manouevre the OCT claims that he made to "penetrate" the first floor of the Pentagon way outside the safety envelope of a 757 at cruise speed. Didn't he?

Buck Rodgers eat your heart out.

Did you watch the "WTC 9/11 - Controlability" video linked to? The proven limitations of a 757?

Or National Security Alert?

Hay, I've watched National Security Alert and I'm quite interested in that POS. But, I'm more interested in "Operational Accountability". How's that going and why has there been no further information about that?