It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
hellobruce
NavyDoc
No, actually Phage as well as several others did a good explanation of those numbers and how they don't mean what the OP thinks they mean. This bit of logic was simply ignored.
Of course they had to ignore it.... to admit it was correct would mean their conspiracy theory was wrong!
MarioOnTheFly
I don't get your logic...If you intend to slam the planes into buildings...than falling short of that goal...is a huge miss don't you think? And daring the plane's structural capabilities by performing uneccessary acrobatics only decreases chances of success...and that is...to reach the buildings...no ?
Of course...they could have been complete morons...and disregarded the mission objective completely...and just went for a crazy joyride...taking as many risks as possible.
hellobruce
Can you please name the hundreds or thousands of pilots, and show where each one said
"it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines".
Or, would it be much more accurate to say they never said that at all!
It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.
NullVoid
hellobruce
Can you please name the hundreds or thousands of pilots, and show where each one said
"it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines".
Or, would it be much more accurate to say they never said that at all!
It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.
I copy paste it from Pilot for 911 after less than a minute searching. Nice to spoon fed somebody, we learn new stuff.
NullVoid
I copy paste it from Pilot for 911 after less than a minute searching.
MysterX
Perhaps you should ask the OP directly, and stop taking cheap pops at others who actually do respond to him?
Just a thought.
While you're at it..why not challenge the numbers the OP has shown and show us where he is wrong about them and why you would claim that?
I mean..personally, i've absolutely no idea of the capabilities of a 767 at any height, so without exhaustive research on airframes, wind tunnel testing and engines etc of said aircraft, i don't actually know if the what the OP is saying is accurate or not and so i for one, would appreciate the correct information being presented by those who do know, instead of snyde oneupmanship retorts.
Since you claim you're all about intolerance to ignorance, the implication being you wish nothing more than to correct misinterpretation / innaccuracies and reveal the actual facts, feel free to go ahead and show us why his numbers are an example of ignorance (unless you already have further along the thread, in which case, thanks) Unless short quips targeted at others' interpretations is more your thing, then carry on.
It's fairly simple..either a 767 could have reasonably performed speeds and course corrections that were stated to have occurred on 9/11, or they couldn't have...it's one or the other
but it seems there are hundreds if not thousands of qualified, experienced pilots - including commercial airliner pilots it seems, that are in no doubt that it is impossible for the aircraft to have performed as they did on 9/11 WITHOUT significant modifications to both the airframe itself and the engines and that's not even taking into account the experience or inexperience of whoever may have been at the flight controls...which is fairly irrelavent if the physical characteristics of the aircraft do not even permit the aircraft to behave as they supposedly did on the day.
InTheFlesh1980
Phage, I really respect your scientific approach on a lot of topics. You truly are a highly intelligent individual.
But regarding specific topics, like this, your thickness is brutally evident. You are sorely lacking in the ability to evaluate probability.
There are countless topics you have commented on which you entirely lack proof of your assertions, citing arguably biased sources.
Part of being a scientist is understanding when the basis for your postulations is fraudulent (i.e. "not YOUR research", the research of those with an AGENDA). You lack this, and thus you lack true objectivity.
The official story regarding 9/11 is a mathematical impossibility. Period.
There is no model of probability which can support it. Yet you perpetually interject your complete improbabilities as if they hold merit.
I will not argue the details, as they rest on the deafest of ears.
Let it be known, your words here have no more merit than the next.
And although you may have a wonderful grasp of the austerity of scientific methods, you are wanting much in the ability to draw conclusions from the most obvious body of evidence in conspiratorial history.
The results of the Safety Board's examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no
radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent. Further, it is apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact, attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion,and all associated recorded parameters changed accordingly.
the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute
neformore
So... ok.
This one has intrigued me, so I did some quick research. I'll readily admit, it was very quick but.....
EA990's flight profile is as follows - heights are taken off the radar plots
en.wikipedia.org...:Msr990-ntsb-f1.jpeg
So that chart shows that the plane went into a dive - dropped 17,000ft in approximately one minute, exceeded its safe limits for a period of time, but pulled back up again and almost recovered.
And the NTSB Report into the crash of EA990 here;
www.ntsb.gov...
Says on Page 59...
The results of the Safety Board's examination of CVR, FDR, radar, airplane maintenance history, wreckage, trajectory study, and debris field information were not consistent with any portion of the airplane (including any part of the longitudinal flight controls) separating throughout the initial dive and subsequent climb to about 25,000 feet mean sea level (msl). It is apparent that the left engine and some small pieces of wreckage separated from the airplane at some point before water impact because they were located in the western debris field about 1,200 feet from the eastern debris field. Although no
radar or FDR data indicated exactly when (at what altitude) the separation occurred, on the basis of aerodynamic evidence and the proximity of the two debris fields, it is apparent that the airplane remained intact until sometime during its final descent. Further, it is apparent that while the recorders were operating, both elevator surfaces were intact, attached to the airplane, and placed in the positions recorded by the FDR data and that the elevator movements were driving the airplane pitch motion,and all associated recorded parameters changed accordingly.
According to Wiki here - en.wikipedia.org... - 175's speed was;
the plane was in a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute
So we have a plane (EA 990) that dropped 17,000ft in a minute and almost made it, and a plane (175) that dropped 24,000 feet in 5 minutes
175 was in a shallower descent, albeit for longer, but 990 almost made it. The NTSB doesn't indicate that the plane broke up until at all after its descent and reclimb, and that the engine only separated just before impact - so why couldn't 175 have stayed intact until it hit the tower?
NewAgeMan
reply to post by miniatus
NavyDoc
You can make calls above 20,000 feet. Where was it proven you could not? You can make a call 4 miles from a cell tower on land, what does altitude have to do with it?
Under no circumstances is Mach 1 at sea level under 500 mph or knots, let alone 411? Really? We would be hearing sonic booms continually if that were true. Another case of building an argument on false data (scuse me...BS data)
Great Jupiter's Balls...
That's the argument isn't it.
Probability vs Actuality
Just so you know and for the record. I have some serious questions myself regarding the events of that day and maybe someday I'll post and ask them in this forum and I'll try my damnedest to find unbiased, qualified and properly sources supporting evidence to back up my queries.
- One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11.
- 46% Suspect Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 after Viewing Video Footage of Collapse.
Yeah of course you wont argue the details, why would you.
neformore
So we have a plane (EA 990) that dropped 17,000ft in a minute and almost made it, and a plane (175) that dropped 24,000 feet in 5 minutes.
175 was in a shallower descent, albeit for longer, but 990 almost made it. 990 underwent a much more severe event, to my mind. The NTSB doesn't indicate that the plane broke up until at all after its descent and reclimb, and that the engine only separated just before impact - so why couldn't 175 have stayed intact until it hit the tower?
edit on 31/12/13 by neformore because: (no reason given)