Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

[Occam's Razor]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Not new been posted in this forum before, just go back and look for it but here is some links I just googled for you, faster than going back through 100's of pages I admit.

Screw Loose Change: Novice Pilot Hits Pentagon in Flight Simulator
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
Can planes fly at 500+ mph 1000 ft altitude? - JREF Forum

I appreciate the links, but you might want to update your list.

The first video has been deleted
The second link suffers the same problems as nearly all arguments, official and alternative... which I'll get into
The third shows some low passes but no speed indication.

Someone below posted the dutch simulation video, which was interesting... but it again suffers a recurring problem...

No quantifiable, rigorous, documented tests have been done. In the dutch video flight speed is given as slightly above normal... what exactly is that?

I find the same problems with the alternative hypothesis...

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I appreciate the links, but you might want to update your list.

The first video has been deleted
The second link suffers the same problems as nearly all arguments, official and alternative... which I'll get into
The third shows some low passes but no speed indication.

Someone below posted the dutch simulation video, which was interesting... but it again suffers a recurring problem...

No quantifiable, rigorous, documented tests have been done. In the dutch video flight speed is given as slightly above normal... what exactly is that?

I find the same problems with the alternative hypothesis...

go back find the sources linked to earlier in these threads. fact is someone trying to hit a building can someone trying to miss misses all seems rather obvious to me.

 

[Quag]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Let's look at this from an engineering design point of view, which might help explain it better.

Like you said, there is compromise in the design of the control surfaces and their positions on the aircraft, for force, leverage, etc..

The design paradigm would be to have optimal control at the speeds most often used for a given air density (altitude) and where it is most critical. The speeds used at sea level are close to landing and takeoff speeds and close to land is where a lot of control would be required. One cannot have optimal control at landing and takeoff speeds at sea level air density and still have it at 500 mph at sea level air density with 11 times the dynamic pressure. Air pressure at 37,000 feet is 25% of what it is at sea level, so the dynamic pressure difference between 500 mph at 37,000 feet and 150 mph at sea level would be less than 3 times. The tolerance for error is much greater at high altitude and therefore the amount of control needed at high altitude is significantly less than it is when landing or taking off.

I would bet the trade-off is to have optimal control at landing and take-off speeds, to reduce the danger, and give up just a little bit where you don't need it. Which would be at high altitude, where you are also helped by much lower air density and a large decrease in dynamic pressure for a given airspeed.

nope it has to be controllable over all the airspeeds the plane is likely to encounter in normal flight.

perhaps I am not understanding what exactly you have a problem with. is it that the control surfaces will tear off at such speeds or that they will be too sensitive to control or something else? as for the first 2 no they are designed to operate at such speeds with such forces with an acceptable safety factor that it can go past stated limits and not fall apart, keeping with those limits is to not produce excessive wear and shorten the lifespan of the aircraft. if you claim it becomes to sensitive to control this is again false it actually gets easier believe it or not. ask any actual pilot HD doesn't count as well I doubt hes a pilot but ones you know in real life. Don't say why you want to know just ask them and you will find they all agree with me. if it is another reason you think this way please explain as I have no clue what your talking about.
BTW see links I posted as some of them explain better than I do.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

nope it has to be controllable over all the airspeeds the plane is likely to encounter in normal flight.

perhaps I am not understanding what exactly you have a problem with. is it that the control surfaces will tear off at such speeds or that they will be too sensitive to control or something else? as for the first 2 no they are designed to operate at such speeds with such forces with an acceptable safety factor that it can go past stated limits and not fall apart, keeping with those limits is to not produce excessive wear and shorten the lifespan of the aircraft. if you claim it becomes to sensitive to control this is again false it actually gets easier believe it or not. ask any actual pilot HD doesn't count as well I doubt hes a pilot but ones you know in real life. Don't say why you want to know just ask them and you will find they all agree with me. if it is another reason you think this way please explain as I have no clue what your talking about.
BTW see links I posted as some of them explain better than I do.

The aircraft cannot possibly be easier to control in a higher pressure situation than what is optimal. Optimal would surely be for landing and takeoff speeds due to the low tolerance for error. The place one can give something up to use high speed is at high altitude. You can't have it both ways, and that is what your claim is attempting to do.

The factor of safety here is relative to the risk or tolerance for error. I can guarantee that the control surface size and location is optimal for landing and takeoff speeds with something given up for high speed that is partially mitigated at altitude, but wouldn't be at sea level. The level of control at high speed is not even close to what it is at landing and takeoff speeds, even at high altitude, let alone at sea level.

I was an aircraft mechanic and for the last 27 years a mechanical engineer, so I am not without real world experience here.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Posted this before:
"Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

as far as fly by wire that modern aircraft uses today. The computer takes a lot of the guessing out of flying the aircraft.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Posted this before:
"Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect

as far as fly by wire that modern aircraft uses today. The computer takes a lot of the guessing out of flying the aircraft.

Mike, we aren't talking about ground effect issues. We are talking about the level of control of commercial aircraft at high speed at sea level.

One thing you do bring up is computer control. It is almost certainly what was used to guide the aircraft into the towers. The control was too great for human interaction at high speed at sea level. Now as to who instigated the computer control, I don't know. Could it be done from the cockpit by a hijacker? I don't know.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

While a liked your reply, you may have missed what I was asking your thoughts on.

You stated, "That's assuming that any given court in the US serves truth and justice, an invalid and poor assumption"

So you have not thoughts on how to ensure our courts serves truth and justice?

I used to embrace Madison's view, that "the judiciary is the last bulwark against tyranny", but came to the bitter realization that 200 years later, for the most part the courts are as corrupt as the other 2 branches.

This has been demonstrated too many times lately. Citizens United, Kelo, and a handful of other decisions have shown that crony capitalism and fascism permeate this government, including the judiciary.

Regarding 911, the malfeasance of Judge Hellerstein in New York's federal court is legend, if one reads the story.

The history books have been written Mike, and you approve of it. What can I say? I know the world is not perfect, but I don't have to accept all the lies. I will sleep fine tonight, enjoy an afternoon at the beach tomorrow, even though I know full well my government is as corrupt as any that ever existed on this planet. Life goes on.

Have a good weekend.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

What are the official reported speeds for the jets?

So, no matter how fast the jet is going, it will be in controlled flight right up until the wings come off?

440 mph for the north tower and 550 for the south tower though different sources give somewhat different numbers. It seems to be universally acknowledged that the south tower impact was faster.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I used to embrace Madison's view, that "the judiciary is the last bulwark against tyranny", but came to the bitter realization that 200 years later, for the most part the courts are as corrupt as the other 2 branches.

That is the absurd part of this business. I decided after two airliners could not have done that to the twin towers. So how can the United States admit it is obvious now?

But how can physics be taught now?

Judges can't comprehend grade school physics? LOL This has changed my whole view of Western culture.

psik

 

[mike2810]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I used to embrace Madison's view, that "the judiciary is the last bulwark against tyranny", but came to the bitter realization that 200 years later, for the most part the courts are as corrupt as the other 2 branches.

This has been demonstrated too many times lately. Citizens United, Kelo, and a handful of other decisions have shown that crony capitalism and fascism permeate this government, including the judiciary.

Regarding 911, the malfeasance of Judge Hellerstein in New York's federal court is legend, if one reads the story.

The history books have been written Mike, and you approve of it. What can I say? I know the world is not perfect, but I don't have to accept all the lies. I will sleep fine tonight, enjoy an afternoon at the beach tomorrow, even though I know full well my government is as corrupt as any that ever existed on this planet. Life goes on.

Have a good weekend.

This is sad. You make an statement that says "lies", and because you believe it, we are to accept it.

I too will sleep good. You have a good one also HD.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

440 mph for the north tower and 550 for the south tower though different sources give somewhat different numbers. It seems to be universally acknowledged that the south tower impact was faster.

psik

I would like to know just exactly how did anybody come up with those numbers ... 550 MPH
and that close to sea level .... right?!?!?!

This bit can be looked at from many different angles ...
one being that the complexity of using commercial airliners as weapons is enormous,
there is no precedent for doing that sort of damage to any building.

Also, the fact is that the probability of three different airliner crashes having the
same characteristic .. that is the plane punches a hole in a wall and then the entire
plane disappears inside, ( not the stuff on the Pentagon lawn accounts for less
than 1% of the mass of a Boeing )

You do NOT have to be an expert in airliner crash phenomenon to get this.

and also, I have seen it demonstrated that a guy holds up a 25lb barbell and
drops it on an ordinary bathroom scale, and destroys the scale and then
sez "see moving objects pack quite a lot of energy! " HOWEVER what is
totally bogus about the demo in reference to what is seen, is that the
alleged "pile driver" that was the agent of destruction for the twin towers,
didn't deliver its energy, that is something that is in uniform downward motion
is NOT giving up its Kinetic energy!

The official story of 9/11/2001 = Violation(s) of the laws of physics

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I would like to know just exactly how did anybody come up with those numbers ... 550 MPH
and that close to sea level .... right?!?!?!

Yes, because we all know that an aircraft can't possibly fly that fast close to sea level. The air is so thick that it would rip the wings off and spiral into the ground, or something.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Yes, because we all know that an aircraft can't possibly fly that fast close to sea level. The air is so thick that it would rip the wings off and spiral into the ground, or something.

Please cite any documented example of a commercial airliner being operated at 550 MPH
that close to sea-level ..... where is it?

 

[SanderO]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Please cite any documented example of a commercial airliner being operated at 550 MPH
that close to sea-level ..... where is it?

Why would they in the first place? And if it broke apart it still delivered the same KE and probably DID break apart or was about to... who knows.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Why would they in the first place? And if it broke apart it still delivered the same KE and probably DID break apart or was about to... who knows.

The main point to take out of this discussion is that the aircraft had to have been guided into the buildings via computer control. What does that do to your view of things?

 

[SanderO]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

The main point to take out of this discussion is that the aircraft had to have been guided into the buildings via computer control. What does that do to your view of things?

Of course... why would anyone use manual controls when APs can drive better?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Of course... why would anyone use manual controls when APs can drive better?

I don't know if you can be sure it was just autopilot. The South Tower aircraft was heading for NYC City Hall until two miles out. How can you explain that?

 

[Menard_K]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Where are the broadcast quality original video tape(s) of the events?
The Evan Fairbanks video is clearly a good place to start,
if the original, or a good certified copy of it, was available, one could examine
it frame by frame & my take on the subject, based on looking at
a number of the documentaries that use this bit, is that if you take
the first appearance of the nose of the aircraft at the left edge of the
frame, and count frames until the tail clears, and then do the same
for when it strikes the building, I believe you will find the same number of
frames in each case. Its a very simple operation to do, WHY hasn't the
MSM done this? Given the fact that Video is 30 frames / sec, you could
peg the speed of the "aircraft" very accurately.

Is 9/11/2001 one of the most poorly documented
disasters since the invention of Photography?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Where are the broadcast quality original video tape(s) of the events?
The Evan Fairbanks video is clearly a good place to start,
if the original, or a good certified copy of it, was available, one could examine
it frame by frame & my take on the subject, based on looking at
a number of the documentaries that use this bit, is that if you take
the first appearance of the nose of the aircraft at the left edge of the
frame, and count frames until the tail clears, and then do the same
for when it strikes the building, I believe you will find the same number of
frames in each case. Its a very simple operation to do, WHY hasn't the
MSM done this? Given the fact that Video is 30 frames / sec, you could
peg the speed of the "aircraft" very accurately.

Is 9/11/2001 one of the most poorly documented
disasters since the invention of Photography?

At 550 mph, the plane will cover almost 30 feet. There is a reason people use high speed cameras to measure high speed impacts... there is simply not enough information to serve as proof of anything. It's nothing more than a compelling question without rigorous testing. The MSM don't do it because they would be laughed at.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

At 550 mph, the plane will cover almost 30 feet. There is a reason people use high speed cameras to measure high speed impacts... there is simply not enough information to serve as proof of anything. It's nothing more than a compelling question without rigorous testing. The MSM don't do it because they would be laughed at.

Exactly what is the "almost 30 feet" reference?
My calculations show that at 30 frames/sec a 160 ft long aircraft would travel its own length in 6 frames, @ 550 MPH ....
now there are several assumptions happening here on the supports the official explanation side of the argument.
one is that the video is inadequate to render any useable information, and I disagree on that point.
another assumption is that the wall of the WTC tower would not have presented significant resistance to penetration.
HOWEVER, think of this: on a continuum of at one end, a solid stone wall that an aircraft if crashed into this would simply smash itself to bits and not penetrate, and on the other extreme, a wall of paper where the aircraft would not show any indication at all that it had hit anything. how consider a wall not only made of quarter inch box columns, but the box columns are backed up by more steel plate & at 12 ft intervals in the vertical, 4" thick concrete & steel decks, supported by steel trusses...( get the picture )

If it can be shown, and it can, that the "aircraft" covers its own length in x number of frames while in air
and also the same number of frames while penetrating a wall, what do YOU think?

There is commonly used high school science demo that uses video to measure the speed of a moving object,
This is valid science. The acceleration of the WTC towers & WTC7 have been measured with the videos.

WHY not have the TV networks (because they are in possession of the original medial) analyze the data
and give the public a definitive answer. (?) could it be that the MSM is complicit in the fraud?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Exactly what is the "almost 30 feet" reference?
My calculations show that at 30 frames/sec a 160 ft long aircraft would travel its own length in 6 frames, @ 550 MPH ....
now there are several assumptions happening here on the supports the official explanation side of the argument.
one is that the video is inadequate to render any useable information, and I disagree on that point.
another assumption is that the wall of the WTC tower would not have presented significant resistance to penetration.
HOWEVER, think of this: on a continuum of at one end, a solid stone wall that an aircraft if crashed into this would simply smash itself to bits and not penetrate, and on the other extreme, a wall of paper where the aircraft would not show any indication at all that it had hit anything. how consider a wall not only made of quarter inch box columns, but the box columns are backed up by more steel plate & at 12 ft intervals in the vertical, 4" thick concrete & steel decks, supported by steel trusses...( get the picture )

If it can be shown, and it can, that the "aircraft" covers its own length in x number of frames while in air
and also the same number of frames while penetrating a wall, what do YOU think?

There is commonly used high school science demo that uses video to measure the speed of a moving object,
This is valid science. The acceleration of the WTC towers & WTC7 have been measured with the videos.

WHY not have the TV networks (because they are in possession of the original medial) analyze the data
and give the public a definitive answer. (?) could it be that the MSM is complicit in the fraud?

Dr. Steven Jones has mentioned that measurements of the aircraft hitting the South Tower were done and that the plane does decelerate upon entry.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I don't know if you can be sure it was just autopilot. The South Tower aircraft was heading for NYC City Hall until two miles out. How can you explain that?

Look at any track of a craft through a fluid medium...it's rarely straight. The rack appears to have been a very larger sweeping descending arc with some course corrections. You can't know what was going on. And so... Why try to explain your assumptions?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Look at any track of a craft through a fluid medium...it's rarely straight. The rack appears to have been a very larger sweeping descending arc with some course corrections. You can't know what was going on. And so... Why try to explain your assumptions?

You apparently don't know much about it.

The track is known and was measured. I linked two videos on this earlier by a German engineer who frequented the 911 forum. The South Tower aircraft was nosing for NYC City Hall until the last two miles and then it made a very precise correction. An autopilot would have been moving towards the South Tower the entire time. It also could not be corrected to change the target from NYC City Hall to the tower in that short period of time.

What would explain this apparent switch in targets in the last two miles is a homing device in City Hall to bring the plane in from long range, and then a handoff when close enough to a shorter range homing device in the tower.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

Exactly what is the "almost 30 feet" reference?
My calculations show that at 30 frames/sec a 160 ft long aircraft would travel its own length in 6 frames, @ 550 MPH ....
now there are several assumptions happening here on the supports the official explanation side of the argument.
one is that the video is inadequate to render any useable information, and I disagree on that point.
another assumption is that the wall of the WTC tower would not have presented significant resistance to penetration.
HOWEVER, think of this: on a continuum of at one end, a solid stone wall that an aircraft if crashed into this would simply smash itself to bits and not penetrate, and on the other extreme, a wall of paper where the aircraft would not show any indication at all that it had hit anything. how consider a wall not only made of quarter inch box columns, but the box columns are backed up by more steel plate & at 12 ft intervals in the vertical, 4" thick concrete & steel decks, supported by steel trusses...( get the picture )

If it can be shown, and it can, that the "aircraft" covers its own length in x number of frames while in air
and also the same number of frames while penetrating a wall, what do YOU think?

There is commonly used high school science demo that uses video to measure the speed of a moving object,
This is valid science. The acceleration of the WTC towers & WTC7 have been measured with the videos.

WHY not have the TV networks (because they are in possession of the original medial) analyze the data
and give the public a definitive answer. (?) could it be that the MSM is complicit in the fraud?

sorry, I didn't make it past the second sentence...

550mph = 806 feet per second
806 / 30f = 27 feet per frame
27ft * 6f = 162 feet (length of fuselage)

this is really simple math, what's the problem?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Is there any way to cure a truther?

I would like to know just exactly how did anybody come up with those numbers ... 550 MPH
and that close to sea level .... right?!?!?!

This bit can be looked at from many different angles ...
one being that the complexity of using commercial airliners as weapons is enormous,
there is no precedent for doing that sort of damage to any building.

Also, the fact is that the probability of three different airliner crashes having the
same characteristic .. that is the plane punches a hole in a wall and then the entire
plane disappears inside, ( not the stuff on the Pentagon lawn accounts for less
than 1% of the mass of a Boeing )

You do NOT have to be an expert in airliner crash phenomenon to get this.

and also, I have seen it demonstrated that a guy holds up a 25lb barbell and
drops it on an ordinary bathroom scale, and destroys the scale and then
sez "see moving objects pack quite a lot of energy! " HOWEVER what is
totally bogus about the demo in reference to what is seen, is that the
alleged "pile driver" that was the agent of destruction for the twin towers,
didn't deliver its energy, that is something that is in uniform downward motion
is NOT giving up its Kinetic energy!

The official story of 9/11/2001 = Violation(s) of the laws of physics

I'm pretty sure that the source of those numbers you cite was radar data, which is itself suspect because of the way the radar was spoofed that morning under the guise of Vigilant Guardian.